Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt (fwd)
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:
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.
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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt (fwd)
Thanks for the comments, Lynn!
--On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500 "Lynn St.Amour"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11:43 PM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Folks,
as you can see, version -04 is out.
It should reflect pretty accurately the items that seemed to have
consensus as of last night; on still open issues, it contains either
the same text as before or some proposed text.
Harald,
I have a couple of comments below; I will address some of the other
questions raised by Margaret and Rob by responding to their mails. Also,
note: the ISOC Board is reviewing the -04 version and my comments should
not be interpreted as the full extent of ISOC's comments, those will be
sent soon.
-- In 2.1
IAOC: Internet Administrative Oversight Committee, defined by this
document.
Should be IETF rather than Internet (especially with the current
governance discussion underway unless we really want to liven that
discussion up :-). I think the references in the document itself are OK
but I did not do a thorough check.
Ouch - this got noticed before, but we did not fix it. Right you are!
-- 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.
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?
Minor editorial comments:
- In 3.1 6th para - delete redundant "should"
- In 3.2 1st para - delete redundant "be"
- In 4 4th para - delete redundant "as"
Again, thanks to everyone (and especially Bert, Rob and Henrik) for all
the work.
Regards,
Lynn
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt (fwd)
At 11:43 PM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Folks, as you can see, version -04 is out. It should reflect pretty accurately the items that seemed to have consensus as of last night; on still open issues, it contains either the same text as before or some proposed text. Harald, I have a couple of comments below; I will address some of the other questions raised by Margaret and Rob by responding to their mails. Also, note: the ISOC Board is reviewing the -04 version and my comments should not be interpreted as the full extent of ISOC's comments, those will be sent soon. -- In 2.1 IAOC: Internet Administrative Oversight Committee, defined by this document. Should be IETF rather than Internet (especially with the current governance discussion underway unless we really want to liven that discussion up :-). I think the references in the document itself are OK but I did not do a thorough check. -- 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/ 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. Minor editorial comments: - In 3.1 6th para - delete redundant "should" - In 3.2 1st para - delete redundant "be" - In 4 4th para - delete redundant "as" Again, thanks to everyone (and especially Bert, Rob and Henrik) for all the work. Regards, Lynn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
