So... why is it an issue when I suggest it?
nothing special for you Bert :-)
Thanks... I did not think so either, but it looked like it.
But does your text not boil down to the same process?
it might or it might mean that a big pool of money is maintained
whatever - the bottom line is that the IASA needes to be able to
count on money being available - why not just say that?
Mmm... I guess we disagree here.
May be I need to explain my (personal) thinking.
In my view, just as an example, if we have this budget:
Revenues: expenses $5M
- meeting fees $ 2M
- earmarked donations: $ 2M
- ISOC budget $ 1M
and at the end of the year it turnes out that we adhered to th $5M spending
and that the meeting fees and earmarked donations are say $ 5M, then I
would hope we can set aside $1 M for reserve funds for possible future
shortfalls and/or disasters.
I'd hope that ISOC would still be willing to allocate $ 1M for IETF
(at least untill we have our defined reserve fund established).
In fact I would rather see a budget:
revenues: expenses
- meeting fees $ 2M allocate to reserve fund $.5M
- earmarked donations: $ 2M normal expenses $4.5M
- ISOC budget $ 1M
And then if meeting fees turn out to generate an extra 1M without extra
cost, then put the extra 1M in the reserve fund so we get to our defined
"reserve" faster.
Makes sense? Or am I too prudent a European (or maybe worse: Dutchman)?
Bert
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf