and I'd like it *very* clear that a dialogue is part of the process i.e. I'd like to see it written down so that no one has any misunderstanding now or in the future that a dialogue is part of teh process
Scott ------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:47:00 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.1 - ISOC involvement in bugdet --On 12. desember 2004 20:33 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > open from last version > >> This does not seem to admit to the possibility that the ISOC board might >> say 'wait a minute - you are asking for twice as much money as you got >> last year - we need to work with you to figure out a funding level that >> the ISOC can support' - i.e. it is not reasonable to assume that the >> ISOC BoT can carry out the above mentioned fiduciary responsibility >> without being able to engage in a dialogue over budget amounts. >> >> An open question in my mind is the degree of detail and itemization that >> the ISOC BoT needs to have to carry out the fiduciary responsibility >> i.e. it seems like the ISOC might have a hard time with its auditors if >> what it approved is just a line item for the IETF expenditures with no >> breakdown. But on the other hand we do not want the ISOC BoT to be >> arguing over how many copies of the newcomer's presentation handouts get >> made. We need to figure out a reasonable process that permits the ISOC >> to understand what the money is going for, be able to suggest >> alternatives if they might be more efficient, and have an ability to >> have input to the review of RFP responses without limiting the ability >> and authority of the IAD/IAHC to make the final decisions (as long as >> they stay within a budget) > > basically - no discussion between the ISOC and the IAD is called > for in putting the budget together - that seems to be an error (if > the assumption is that the ISOC reps on the IASA will be the > dhisussion path then it would be good to state that - it is > better to be clear than to have people in the future assume that > the ISOC BoT just gets to approve a proposed IETF budget rather than > think about it and teh implications for ISOC's overall budget I replied on November 22 (same reply as last message): > I don't understand your comment - given that the timeline shown in the > BCP has the ISOC BoT working with the IAD over the budget for 4-5 months > (July to November/December), how can you think that there will not be a > dialogue over that period of time? > > This applies to multiple places in your comments - you seem to have read > "dialogue is not explicitly mentioned" as "no dialogue is allowed to take > place", and I simply can't understand how you came to that reading. > > Remember also that the ISOC President is part of the IAOC. There will > ALWAYS be channels for making suggestions. Harald _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf