The important point I was trying to make were that section 5 of the
document seems to be ratholing on details of the accounting structure and
timing of deposits while potentially missing important high-level concerns
and failing to demonstrate an understanding of ISOC's current accounting
structure or audit issues. What I would really like to see in the document
is a specification of the requirements the implementation should achieve
rather than the details of the implementation. I would also like the folks
writing the text to discuss the text and what they want to result from it
with ISOC's accounting office, so that there can be an appropriate exchange
of views. ISOC's accounting office has not advised me that this has happened.
Note that I have no issue with the objectives as I understand them - that
there be sufficient money on account for IETF to do what it needs to do
with clarity and certainty, and be able to account to the community for the
money received and spent. But I infer these from the document; I don't read
them in the document. What I read in the document is a fairly detailed
description of one of the many ways that might be achieved.
Saying that seems to have resulted in a serious amount of debate deep down
in the rathole, in some cases defending the rathole. That wasn't what I
intended. I just wanted the right folks to go sit down and talk, as the
IETF does in any other such discussion.
It still looks knee deep in a rathole to me. I would still like to see
requirements rather than implementations. And I would still like to hear
that dialog is happening with ISOC's accounting office.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf