I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
I think the vague term "accounts" is just fine for the purpose we are
engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community
would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of
standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and
liabilities of that cost center. I don't think we need to get into
general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC Standards
In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to
- IASA Accounts
- IETF accounts
- ISOC Standards pillar
In discussion, it seems clear that "IETF accounts" is a mistake, and
be changed to "IASA accounts" wherever it occurs.
"IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledger
accounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of
rather vague term "accounts".
general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is
not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides
up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable
term. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical
- purchases/creditors ledger
- sales/debtors ledger
- general/impersonal ledger
- private ledger
so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps
misleading view of the financial state of an organisation. In fact, I
would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and
loss, trading, drawings etc.
More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy
technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term).
Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic?
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list