Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Se

Hi,

I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.

But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem as 
long as one thing happens.  That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer to) 
is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then editorial, it 
will need to go through a second call before the IESG can decide on it. 
 I.e,, as you said, as soon as an -03 that is substantially different 
comes out, the LC clock restarts.
I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to LC, is a 
good thing to do at this point, even while some of us, myself included, 
continue to argue on particular points we are uncomfortable with.
a.


On 11 dec 2004, at 00.26, John C Klensin wrote:

> Harald,
>
> This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
> the note below and the general support your suggestion has
> gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
> is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
> Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a hypothetical document,
> draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02-bis.txt, which consists of the I-D as
> modified by assorted comments and agreements on the IETF mailing
> list or perhaps elsewhere.
>
> Is that your intent?
>
> If so, I am at least mildly concerned: normally, we have Last
> Call reviews against stable documents, not documents that are
> still actively changing, much less virtual documents in which
> significant  changes are being made out of band and in a way
> that is very hard for someone casually participating in the IETF
> to track.  Do you have a better suggestion?  Can  we expect a
> -03 for final review halfway through the Last Call window, with
> the window being restarted if the changes are significant enough?
>
>      john
>
>
>
>
> --On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 23:11 +0100 Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
>
> > After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
> > to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
> > this issue.
> > (Not to mention that the secretariat still hasn't posted
> > version -02)
> >
> > So - scanning back - I find that we have Bert's suggestion for
> > "principle" that seems to have met with no strong disfavour:
> >
> >    Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
> > IETF accounts,
> >    they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
> > IETF.
> >
> > (Scott preferred my variant:
> >
> >     Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to
> > the support of
> >     the IETF
> >
> > but I don't - this does not cover meeting fees)
> >
> > So I propose the following consensus text - relative to
> > bcp-02, which is visible on
> > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-0
> > 2.html>:
> >
> > a) Add under "Principles", section 2.2, between item 4 and 5:
> >
> >    Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
> > IETF accounts,
> >    they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
> > IETF.
> >
> > b) Note, but DO NOT CHANGE, the following statements from
> > section 5.
> > I believe they address the suggestions Margaret has made for a
> > more detailed specification of money moving into and out of
> > the accounts.
> >
> > 5.2 IETF Meeting Revenues
> >
> > Meeting revenues are an important source of funds for IETF
> > functions. The IAD, in consultation with the IAOC, sets the
> > meeting fees as part of the budgeting process. All meeting
> > revenues shall be credited to the appropriate IASA account.
> >
> > 5.3 Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind
> >
> > .....
> > ISOC shall create appropriate administrative structures to
> > coordinate such donations with the IASA. In-kind resources are
> > owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall be reported
> > and accounted for in a manner that identifies them as such.
> > Designated monetary donations shall be credited to the
> > appropriate IASA account.
> >
> > 5.4 Other ISOC Support
> >
> > Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as
> > specified in Section 6. ISOC shall credit the appropriate IASA
> > accounts at least quarterly.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > 5.5 IASA Expenses
> >
> > The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses
> > related to supporting the IETF may be debited from the IASA
> > account.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf