Maybe I don't understand this either but, in my ignorance, let
me make a suggestion (about which I'm a little uncomfortable,
see below).
It seems to me that, realistically, the total IASA budget
consists of two parts:
* Whatever the IAOC chooses to try to spend out of
IETF-designated cash on hand, e.g., meeting fees as well
as any targeted funds.
* Everything else, which the IAOC would like ISOC to
come up with out of other funds or raise.
Rather than dancing around that issue, why not make it explicit
that the request to ISOC gets submitted in two parts. For the
first, the ISOC would need really good reasons to say "no", with
the assumption going in that there are no such reasons (but I
don't think the BCP should overconstrain things). For the
second, the IAOC is expected to ask nicely with the
understanding that there might be some negotiation. Now, the
two are not completely separable, since ISOC could (and, IMO,
should) reasonably want to look at the details and budget
justification for the first, at least to the extent needed to
determine that some large number of boggles are not buried there
with the intent of shifting all of the "must fund" items into
the "ISOC general funds" part. But, assuming that proposed
costs are reasonably balanced and allocated between the two
pools, if what you really want is to treat them as distinct, why
not think about things on that basis?
The disclaimer/discomfort is that this feels to me as if it is
really too much detail to put into the BCP. To have these
things sorted out, at least as the "this is our hypothesis, we
will try it unless/until it turns out not to work well, and if
that happens, we will try something else" level, seems entirely
reasonable to me, while locking in one strategy or mechanism
does not.
john
--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 00:18 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On tirsdag, desember 21, 2004 16:01:58 -0500 Scott Bradner
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
See the line prefixed with "-->" which I think makes it
clear that the IASA budget should fit with the budget as
expected by IASA.
I think you mean "the IASA budget should fit with the budget
as expected by the ISOC"
but the line you point to does not say that- the line would
allow the IAOC to come up with a budget twice as big as the
ISOC expected - the IAOC would know its twice as big - that
is not the same thing as saying that the budget needs to fit
within a value that the ISOC could support considering its
revenues
Scott,
I *still* don't understand what point you're trying to make,
or why it needs to be made.
I think the IASA needs to tell ISOC a reasonable budget for
the IETF.
That's a job that the BCP says lives with IASA and the IAD,
*NOT* the ISOC BoT.
If IASA says it needs twice as much money as it has, it needs
to explain why. Presumably they will not do so for no reason.
Then, ISOC has to either say "we can come up with that money"
or "we can't come up with that money".
If ISOC says "no", IASA and the IAD has to come up with a new
plan - that's already provided for.
But I think saying "look at ISOC's budget 6 months ahead of
its approval, make a plan that fits within that bugdet, and
make absolutely no requests, ever, for more money" is a silly
way to constrain the IAD.
I think Bert's text is OK.
Harald
_______________________________________________
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