Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so far. Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit organization? And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC so is it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every 12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger organisations, even every three months for some. Tom Petch Engineer (who is also his own accountant) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Malamud" <carl@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC StandardsPillar" > 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 to say "of that cost center" and could > easily say "the IASA". But, when you say "in the form of a P&L 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 doesn't make a lot > of sense. > > While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I do > think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full visibility > and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular reporting > using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the > income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity. > > The general principle is that, because this is a community activity, > we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate > here. That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly > given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat. Not > your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history and > thus requires a little extra attention. > > Regards, > > Carl > > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf