Thanks for the comments, Lynn!
--On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500 "Lynn St.Amour" <st.amour@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may be helpful to more accurately reference later text in the document.
The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
s/reserves/reserves or other mechanisms/
Question on language: in this case (both here and in the title of 5.6), the doc tries to use "reserves" to mean "money available if needed", and "provide reserve" as "have money in the bank or other means of coming up with money if needed".
Is it better in your opinion to use "reserve or other mechanism" when referring to having money available?
I think we're in sync on what its meaning needs to be, and working on how to express it.
per another exchange with Bert:
<bwijnen> I think current text is fine. In the principles it just says "reserves" and so I do not read that as meaning money explicitly. That detail comes later. <bwijnen>
So, I can live with current text per Bert's note...
exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
-- In 5.6 Operating Reserve
As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning.
This doesn't seem to parse clearly - are you suggesting that the targeted reserve fund will be different from the initial guideline as described in the first sentence (or maybe it's a timeframe difference?)? If you want to leave it up to IASA (IAOC?), why not say so directly, perhaps referencing the "under normal operating circumstances" etc. etc.
The intent was to make it clear that the IASA will make a decision on the needed reserves for any given year (I assume that the IAD will propose something after due consultation and IAOC will approve it, but writing that here is clearly overkill), and that the IETF community would give a little guidance ("six months seems OK") and then let them decide.
We can imagine all sorts of circumstances where reserves would depart from norm (after one meeting is cancelled because of a volcano, reserves are lower than usual; after a gift of 100M dollars from a retired dot-com magnate, the reserves are higher....)
Suggestion for how to make this "place authority + non-binding guidance" clearer?
OK, thanks much Harald for the clarity. How about moving: "place authority + non-binding guidance" to "place authority + jointly developed guidance"? : If you agree I've suggested some text below (changes in CAPS).
As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should have an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. However, the IASA WORKING WITH ISOC shall establish ANNUAL TARGETS for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning.
Regards,
Lynn
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf