Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
So... not 100% sure I captured the result ciorrectly.
This is what we have in rev 04:
section title=Divisional Accounting
anchor=divisional-accounting
t
Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a
I have left the change to General Ledger Accounts out for the
time being, because I am not sure we have consensus on that yet
(even though ISOC prefers that terminology).
I would think it is a generally good idea to use the legal terms to
reduce confusion so I see no justification to not use
Revision 5 is ok with me.
Tom Petch
This is what I have in my edit buffer for revision 05
section title=Cost Center Accounting
anchor=cc-accounting
t
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA
shall
be accounted for in
Comments below.
Thanks, Lynn
At 6:03 PM +0100 1/20/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Inline,
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
IASA accounts should probably be changed to IASA general ledger
accounts - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping
Margaret,
I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state
what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC.
This should not override the section (principle) you quote below.
Perhaps we can add language at the beginning of this section to
clarify all this (or
Lynn's suggested text is fine with me.
Margaret
At 4:53 PM -0500 1/25/05, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Margaret,
I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state
what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC.
This should not override the section (principle) you
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 01:47
To: Lynn St.Amour; Carl Malamud; Tom Petch
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Lynn DuVal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC
Standards Pillar
Lynn's
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 01:47
To: Lynn St.Amour; Carl Malamud; Tom Petch
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Lynn DuVal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC
Standards
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
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
, January 21, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC
Standards Pillar
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
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 PL 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
I full agree with Harald on this
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
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
Inline,
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
