At 8:16 AM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Lynn!
--On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500
"Lynn St.Amour" <st(_dot_)amour(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org> wrote:
-- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may
be helpful to more accurately reference later text in the document.
The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
s/reserves/reserves or other mechanisms/
Question on language: in this case (both here
and in the title of 5.6), the doc tries to use
"reserves" to mean "money available if needed",
and "provide reserve" as "have money in the bank
or other means of coming up with money if
needed".
Is it better in your opinion to use "reserve or
other mechanism" when referring to having money
available?
I think we're in sync on what its meaning needs
to be, and working on how to express it.
per another exchange with Bert:
<bwijnen>
I think current text is fine. In the principles it just says "reserves"
and so I do not read that as meaning money explicitly. That detail
comes later.
<bwijnen>
So, I can live with current text per Bert's note...
exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events
such as income shortfalls.
-- In 5.6 Operating Reserve
As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the
IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient
to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the
recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA
shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating
expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning.
This doesn't seem to parse clearly - are you suggesting that the targeted
reserve fund will be different from the initial guideline as described in
the first sentence (or maybe it's a timeframe difference?)? If you want
to leave it up to IASA (IAOC?), why not say so directly, perhaps
referencing the "under normal operating circumstances" etc. etc.
The intent was to make it clear that the IASA
will make a decision on the needed reserves for
any given year (I assume that the IAD will
propose something after due consultation and
IAOC will approve it, but writing that here is
clearly overkill), and that the IETF community
would give a little guidance ("six months seems
OK") and then let them decide.
We can imagine all sorts of circumstances where
reserves would depart from norm (after one
meeting is cancelled because of a volcano,
reserves are lower than usual; after a gift of
100M dollars from a retired dot-com magnate, the
reserves are higher....)
Suggestion for how to make this "place authority
+ non-binding guidance" clearer?
OK, thanks much Harald for the clarity. How
about moving: "place authority + non-binding
guidance" to "place authority + jointly developed
guidance"? : If you agree I've suggested some
text below (changes in CAPS).
As an initial guideline and in normal operating
circumstances, the IASA should have an operating
reserve for its activities sufficient to cover
6-months of non-meeting operational expenses,
plus twice the recent average for meeting
contract guarantees. However, the IASA WORKING
WITH ISOC shall establish ANNUAL TARGETS for a
reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses
and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent
planning.
Regards,
Lynn
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf