At Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:17:33 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
ISSUE #3:
I don't understand the meaning of the following paragraph. To
whom does the IAOC justify a decision to perform a specific function
"in-house"? And what does it mean for decisions and staffing to be
reviewed against a zero base assumption? What is a "zero base"
assumption?
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced.
Decisions to perform specific functions "in-house" should be
explicitly justified by the IAOC, with these decisions and staffing
reviewed by the IAOC on a regular basis and against a "zero base"
assumption.
ISSUE #4:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit,
financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. In
the long term, financial reserves are preferable; it should be a goal
for ISOC to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the
creation of the IASA.
What is meant by "In the long term, financial reserves are
preferable"? Last time I remember reading this section, it said
something like "It is not expected that these reserves can be
accumulated immediately; it should be a goal for ISOC to reach...".
Does the new wording mean that ISOC should hold the full reserve
in cash? If so, I strongly disagree. Was there a community discussion
that prompted this change?
<hat editor=on>
Yeah, I tripped over both of these while doing a cleanup pass on -04
Thursday night, and had them flagged as points for discussion if
nobody else brought them up first. I didn't change either of them on
that pass because #3 was the result of a long list discussion about
how to phrase the "outsourcing" thing, and #4 was potentially
substantive.
On #3: I assume that "zero base" is a reference to "zero-base
budgeting" (ZBB), a technical term in financial circles. I don't
think we're using it literally, and agree that the usage is unclear.
I -think- the intent here is to say that anything done in-house has to
be justified, not just initially but with periodic review. ZBB is
basicly about forcing ongoing projects to justify themselves in the
same way that new projects would have to when it comes time to do
budgeting, so nobody gets to say "please give us $N because it's what
we got last year." So I think the overall intent here is reasonable,
but the phrasing needs work.
On #4: my current understanding is that this is -intended- to be a
suggestion that it would be better for both IETF and ISOC to have cash
reserves, but I agree that it doesn't read that way. I have other
comments on this issue, but need to change hats to make them.
</hat>
<hat editor=off just-another-bozo=on>
A previous version of the text for #4 read as if the IETF were
demanding a dowery from ISOC, which really bothered me. The text in
-04 isn't that bad, and the specific statement that the "surplus" (if
any) can count against the "reserve" is a step in the right direction,
but the current version still reads a bit like the IETF giving ISOC
orders about how ISOC should spend ISOC money that comes neither from
IETF meeting fees nor from designated donations, which is just wrong.
Telling ISOC how to spend IETF money is appropriate, but if folks from
the IETF want to control how ISOC spends -other- ISOC money, they (we)
should join ISOC, not put demands into this BCP. But maybe it really
is just intended as a suggestion. If this is just a suggestion from
the IETF to ISOC, it's badly phrased.
Personally, I don't think this needs to be in the BCP at all, but from
comments I've seen it's obvious that others would disagree.
In any case, this is, at least in potential, a substantive issue, so
we'd better settle it.
</hat>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf