Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Avri and John,

I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did...

I took this part:

 After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
 to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
 this issue.

To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as scheduled.

When he does start the Last Call, I assume it will be clearer than this and that there will be an official, tracker-generated IETF Last Call message to go with it.

One of the side-effects of doing this work in the IETF at large is that I don't think we'll have two last call cycles (WG LC and IETF LC), I think we'll just have a 4-week IETF LC. Also, the person who is currently declaring consensus on the document issues (Harald, in a chair-like capacity) will also end-up being the shepherding AD. So, I am not sure how/if there will be an AD Review stage before IETF LC...

Margaret

At 12:58 PM +0100 12/11/04, avri@xxxxxxx wrote:
Hi,

I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.

But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer to) is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then editorial, it will need to go through a second call before the IESG can decide on it. I.e,, as you said, as soon as an -03 that is substantially different comes out, the LC clock restarts.

I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to LC, is a good thing to do at this point, even while some of us, myself included, continue to argue on particular points we are uncomfortable with.

a.


On 11 dec 2004, at 00.26, John C Klensin wrote:

 Harald,

 This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
 the note below and the general support your suggestion has
 gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
 is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
 Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a hypothetical document,
 draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02-bis.txt, which consists of the I-D as
 modified by assorted comments and agreements on the IETF mailing
 list or perhaps elsewhere.

 Is that your intent?

 If so, I am at least mildly concerned: normally, we have Last
 Call reviews against stable documents, not documents that are
 still actively changing, much less virtual documents in which
 significant  changes are being made out of band and in a way
 that is very hard for someone casually participating in the IETF
 to track.  Do you have a better suggestion?  Can  we expect a
 -03 for final review halfway through the Last Call window, with
 the window being restarted if the changes are significant enough?

      john




--On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 23:11 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
 to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
 this issue.
 (Not to mention that the secretariat still hasn't posted
 version -02)

 So - scanning back - I find that we have Bert's suggestion for
 "principle" that seems to have met with no strong disfavour:

    Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
 IETF accounts,
    they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
 IETF.

 (Scott preferred my variant:

     Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to
 the support of
     the IETF

 but I don't - this does not cover meeting fees)

 So I propose the following consensus text - relative to
 bcp-02, which is visible on
 <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-0
 2.html>:

 a) Add under "Principles", section 2.2, between item 4 and 5:

    Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
 IETF accounts,
    they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the
 IETF.

 b) Note, but DO NOT CHANGE, the following statements from
 section 5.
 I believe they address the suggestions Margaret has made for a
 more detailed specification of money moving into and out of
 the accounts.

 5.2 IETF Meeting Revenues

 Meeting revenues are an important source of funds for IETF
 functions. The IAD, in consultation with the IAOC, sets the
 meeting fees as part of the budgeting process. All meeting
 revenues shall be credited to the appropriate IASA account.

 5.3 Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind

 .....
 ISOC shall create appropriate administrative structures to
 coordinate such donations with the IASA. In-kind resources are
 owned by the ISOC on behalf of the IETF and shall be reported
 and accounted for in a manner that identifies them as such.
 Designated monetary donations shall be credited to the
 appropriate IASA account.

 5.4 Other ISOC Support

 Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as
 specified in Section 6. ISOC shall credit the appropriate IASA
 accounts at least quarterly.

 ....

 5.5 IASA Expenses

 The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only expenses
 related to supporting the IETF may be debited from the IASA
 account.



 _______________________________________________
 Ietf mailing list
 Ietf@xxxxxxxx
 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]