At 10:15 PM 11/17/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to transfer
these budgetary bumps and grinds to the IASA rather than allowing the
ISOC to help out, making "oops, we're low on cash" something that has to
be discussed as opposed to ISOC simply backstopping things as we have
heretofore agreed. By treating them on a cash basis rather than an
accrual basis, this section seems maximize the pain they cause.
I think we need to find a reasonable way to budget & expense stuff.... you
sure make an accrual basis sound tempting, but we do have to have cash in
hand too.
If you don't have any cash, how you account for it is somewhat academic :^)
What I'm saying - and I'm no more an accounting whiz than you are - is that
when an accountant looks at these things they tend to be a little different
than your Quicken checkbook makes them look. So lets make sure the
accounting folks look at it.
I wonder whether the IETF would consider talking with ISOC's accounting
office to normalize these issues now, and whether the problem really
needs to be this tightly constrained?
I think this is a very valuable piece of advice. I know that I don't know
what I'm talking about when it comes to accounting methods.... I'd hoped
that the transition team (once it's set up) could go into this - the IESG
and IAB are hoping to finalize picking the transition team Monday of next week.
That would be a good thing. My point is to not overconstrain the problem,
but let them address it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf