Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 5.4 - oher ISOC support

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

 



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

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