I tend to agree with Lars’ initial message – flexibility is likely needed here, and a split between ANRW support and meeting F&B seems too restrictive. Colin > On 6 Jan 2019, at 20:10, Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The budget serves the community, not the other way around. If it's failing in some way, I think it it should be fixed. > > FWIW I was chair of the IAOC fiance committee that put together the 2019 budget before it was handed off to the LLC. Over the last few years of the IAOC we made an effort to have meeting related costs moved out from under non-meeting related activities. As part of this, the meeting related part of the IRTF budget was moved under meeting expenses and the non-meeting related part was renamed ANRW Support (Although I frankly don't recall the discussion around this change and would need to search my notes for details.) There were additional breakdowns of the IRTF-specific meeting expenses included in the 2019 budget prep in addition to F&B/Costs, e.g., speaker/student comps and other items to be spent under the direction of the IRTF chair. I'd be surprised if this money isn't still available to the IRTF or that this information isn't part of the passed LLC budget. > > Lou > > On 1/6/2019 1:18 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: >> As a former IRTF Chair and assuming the F&B categorization restricts how the funds can be used, I would agree with Lars. >> >> —aaron >> >> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:52 Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lars@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thank you for the explanation! >> >> On 2019-1-4, at 22:31, Portia Wenze-Danley <pwdanley@xxxxxxxx >> <mailto:pwdanley@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> During the budgeting process, and with input from the IRTF Chair, >>> we determined that the IRTF discretionary budget line was used >>> for the IRTF dinners only at meetings and it made sense to >>> include them in the meeting expenses section to provide the true >>> cost of meetings. >> >> I feel pretty strongly that converting the IRTF Chair's >> discretionary budget to purely an F&B line item is something that >> should be reverted. >> >> When I was serving in that role, I attempted to use the budget for >> comp'ed registrations for researchers (beyond what the Day Pass >> program provided at the time), to cover unexpected costs related >> to the ANRW, etc. In each case that I remember, Ray ended up >> covering those expenses via ISOC, which muddled the distinction >> between ISOC and the IRTF and was part of the reason why I think >> the IASA 2.0 effort was long overdue. >> >> Also, we are looking for a new IRTF Chair at the moment, and >> several candidates have university affiliations. While many seem >> to regularly be able to fund their IETF meeting attendance, the >> effectiveness of the role is increased if additional travel is >> possible, not all of which might be coverable in the same way as >> IETF meeting attendance (e.g., invitations to consult and >> influence EU, NSF, DOE and other funding organization agendas, or >> the IAB retreat.) I believe that it should be possible for the >> IRTF Chair to fund their attendance to such meetings out of the >> discretionary budget, if no alternative funding is available and >> the person decides that it is necessary.. >> >> Converting the line item to an F&B expense eliminates such >> freedoms and reduces the effectiveness of the IRTF Chair. >> >> Lars >> >> -- >> -- aaron Sent from Gmail Mobile > -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
