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 should use to provide that visibility...
Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can be provided in the form of a P&L statement for the costs center and a summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need to say it here?
There is a section of the BCP that says:
Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC.
It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use "cost center accounting", that the financial reports will include a P&L for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves.
Margaret
At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote:
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 to see a 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. I don't think we need to get into general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk.
Regards,
Carl
Inline, Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 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 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 to "IASA accounts" wherever it occurs. > > "IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledger > accounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of the > rather vague term "accounts". > general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable term. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical separate books) - purchases/creditors ledger - sales/debtors ledger - general/impersonal ledger - private ledger so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps misleading view of the financial state of an organisation. In fact, I would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and loss, trading, drawings etc.
More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term).
Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic? <snip>
_______________________________________________ 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