section 5.2
why not just say that the ISOC should not accept any in-kind donations
for the IETF without the prior OK of the IAD/IAOC?
Is that just a matter of wording/clarity?
no - I do not think its a matter of wording - the way its currently
worded the ISOC could accept anything it wanted and call it in knond
donations - I'd like the IAD/IAOC to be in the lopop for all such
donations
I assume you are speaking about the "usefulness" of in-kind donations,
right?
more to who might consider someting useful - it should be the IETF folk
not the ISOC folk on their own
I agree that during startup things may be a bit different. But do we
have to describe transitional things in the BCP ?
it might be useful to say that there is a startup phase where things
will not all be done the way that the BCP describes it
It seems you agree we (IETF) need/want to have a special bank account
for collecting the meeting fees, do you? Not 100% clear to me if you
do.
I thought I was quite clear that I think the question of a seperate
bank account to be an implementation detail that should be left to
the folk directly involved and not preordaned as the only true way in
this document I thought that carl suggesed a reasonable sent of
words to address this
a simple point is that the document asks for quarterly deposits for a
process that has peak funding needs 3 times a year - that does not
mesh
Again, initially that may not mesh, but once we have reserve funds build
up, then that should not be a problem from the IASA/IETF side, should
it?
Maybe it is a problem from ISOC side, that I do not yet know.
just like the above - preordaining anything this specific seems very
silly (and this a particularrly silly example - if you feel that
the IETF MUST (for some reason of assumed control) distate the
frequency of ISOC deposits whty not at least say that the period
should bee the same as the need for funds? ) - again I'd rather leave
this to the people on the line with the IETF establishing WHAT we
want but not presuming to know HOW that is best ensured
to me anything this detail just means that it will have to be revised in
short order when the specific details prove to be a non-optimal way to
proceed - use Carl's words to establish the principal that everyone
will agree to and let the details of how to implement the principal
to the people who will be responsibe for the day to day execution
May I assume that other responses have made it clear that we in
principle
seme to agree and that the "insurance" thing is just an example?
but you missed the basic point of what I tried to say
which is that ALL IETF-specific expendatures needed to be carefully
accounted for - there is no reason to say anyting one way or the other
about any specific example (including insurance) - Carl's words
addressed this as well
section 5.4
I think this is almost right - I think it should say that the
aim is for there to be 6 months of non-meeting expenses available for
the IASA - I suggest this because it does not limit how the reserve
could be provided (maybe as part of a general ISOC line of credit, or
immediately available investment account)
Others have suggested that we must have the reserves in an IASA account
as well. Not sure we have consensus yet on what we (IETF) want/need.
even if that is the least reasonable way to proceed (for example having
funds just sitting in a seperate ank account is not a good way
to protect against inflation)? -
high order bit for many of my comments - I think the authors of this
document are confusing detail with principal - I do not think that
specifying a lot of detail (much of which may turn out to be
not the right way to do things) just to make it look like the IETF
is commanding the situation is a useful way to proceed - I think
its far more important to be VERY clear what the aim of specifying the
details is - for example, just what is the purpose of sayting
that there needs to be a seperate bank account? just insisting that
there be one without saying what the purpose is will just be confusing
later on - the seperate bank account must be symbolic of someting - if
so then just say what its a symbol of and lets figure out the best way
to meet the requirement (I can not imagine that the REQUIREMENT is a
seperate bank account - the requirement could be the ability for the
IETF to have a clean break later in life or someting else - but don't
make people try to guess why the rules you put in the doc are in the doc
just tell the reader directly) - btw - a seperate bank account but still
under the legal umbrella of the ISOC may be much more of a symbol than
anything real in a legal sense
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf