Scott Bradner wrote:
open from last version
this is far to proscriptive - I do not think that the authors of this
document or the general IETF community are accounts - lets establish the
requirement that funds be available when needed but not try to dictate
the best way for that to be done - let the accountants figure that out
a simple point is that the document asks for quarterly deposits for a
process that has peak funding needs 3 times a year - that does not mesh
I did not see anyone speak up in favor of mandating quarterly deposits
for an effort that not a quarterly effort yet this sillyness is still
in the document
I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of
regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF
late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would
be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per
year.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
