ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC Standards Pillar"

2005-01-21 08:15:26
Hi Margaret -

Maybe we agree, but I'm not sure.  I used the following phrase:

   periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of
   standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and
   liabilities of that cost center.  

So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say "of that cost center" and 
could
easily say "the IASA".  But, when you say "in the form of a P&L statement",
I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of the ISOC
overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet doesn't make a lot
of sense.   

While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I do
think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full visibility
and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular reporting
using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the
income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity.

The general principle is that, because this is a community activity,
we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate
here.  That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly
given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat.  Not
your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history and
thus requires a little extra attention.  

Regards,

Carl



I generally agree with Tom and Carl.

The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to 
ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with 
a reasonable level of prudence.  I don't think that our BCP needs to 
specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to 
provide that visibility...

Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within 
ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can 
be provided in the form of a P&L statement for the costs center and a 
summary of its general ledger accounts.  That's fine, but do we need 
to say it here?

There is a section of the BCP that says:

    Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to
    structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a
    department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in
    consultation with the IAOC.

It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the 
IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use "cost 
center accounting", that the financial reports will include a P&L for 
the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, 
etc.  These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out 
(and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF 
community) between themselves.

Margaret


At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -

I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy.  :))

I think the vague term "accounts" is just fine for the purpose we are
engaged in.  I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community
would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of
standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and
liabilities of that cost center.  I don't think we need to get into
general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk.

Regards,

Carl

 Inline,
 Tom Petch
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
 To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
 Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM
 Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC Standards
 Pillar"


 > In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to
 the
 > terms:
 > - IASA Accounts
 > - IETF accounts
 > - ISOC Standards pillar
 > In discussion, it seems clear that "IETF accounts" is a mistake, and
 should
 > be changed to "IASA accounts" wherever it occurs.
 >
 > "IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledger
 > accounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of
 the
 > rather vague term "accounts".
 >
 general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is
 not the one I would want to see.  Accountancy (as taught to me) divides
 up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable
 term.  The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical
 separate books)
  - purchases/creditors ledger
  - sales/debtors ledger
  - general/impersonal ledger
  - private ledger
 so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps
 misleading view of the financial state of an organisation.  In fact, I
 would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and
 loss, trading, drawings etc.

 More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy
 technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term).

 Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic?
 <snip>


 _______________________________________________
 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