Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so
far.
Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it
uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden
meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit
organization?
And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC
so is
it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication
elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every
12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger
organisations, even every three months for some.
Tom Petch
Engineer (who is also his own accountant)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Malamud" <carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org>
To: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "Tom Petch"
<nwnetworks(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC
StandardsPillar"
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