IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Sat, 11 January 2020 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C84F120033; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:57:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mA2_q_jZyBaw; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293D012004A; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id t2so3981597wrr.1; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:56:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=3jgeuovyseLNj4znrOaGYf8ASCW8Au2GVt9izeT5qXw=; b=KCUmk3Pc5kv8hn2AdghOtZ9ucEhOizBPZYPzqUIAWdKDayZOI4QVgJQ5eo+27CZFTD vYBa+iKaehVvtRaxv3EdMfDTbg7mPMQT68wQrb44+gpJOxU+n+VxrLLxji6X8RsMwFn8 7glugXsgLa6DcvGlyscb9gNrGATKFfCF/wAQLur8aYIYZ87Dz1EqW1+oZ/FR/tbVQ2nx 4xtjYoDUq4BvI5FqElgAPE9AhFhtJ6pD+UZGNoJzJs9SrOjyBCiC94+l92qwd3+5ejkm Tq004R0RwfO2gkywT6w57pmS6T+tFL/8UrM3B9Ehksm7p+huyXq4BkFpecqe5ynoDPkM mutA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=3jgeuovyseLNj4znrOaGYf8ASCW8Au2GVt9izeT5qXw=; b=cwulcp0KBdHrO03cZP9aLVrmzGyqcESVRUJWWKg/Xj1JwDZ12i+WKKbp/O2xlUcec1 GCWXIoYh9Owus5ikrl4xjgn3ka5yRpxnrfTwPZ/rT4Mto3MxMSHS/+DMsRxGge3/Y8rO sW4yKsasTTMgWNQ/xoa0uFyGjyNokzdAdpkpPV3+/jg3pKyxWlgEEp6p2V5PnQrYhbAI orC3imSkm64ffQZCIfqKBndVR4jeLzHa6vQ2xSLCRXeBJLr/glrccU5DC7et6Gg+M8b7 qqNp3GfIqHsvrij+jQkpubys1EFrMi1PxQofji8in+7TbSJZDcQz/ZZWgWn3FoSA+A97 QI3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUjl5itOLd1n2CPA5z1sM0aqXNW5EUcXSkKAEw5pxbVN52KrX1T d0Ob64NwyAvDUodlyGeQ3OA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyltk5WrhtQ02coNyWQywGS5daKRGoQ5vIUYQf4Y8fsI2oAVH18imgR48yfAcLM24InMeBkhw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ef10:: with SMTP id e16mr7579534wro.336.1578733015496; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.46] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u14sm5507503wrm.51.2020.01.11.00.56.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:56:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B3D433F0-7778-4200-90BE-7D747A73A29B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0D99ABA9-A960-406B-A8AD-AED44064A0CD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 08:56:23 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CC134A62-DCD5-495F-AB37-42DC11CB0A0B@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <CABcZeBOEXoerwqmNDHOnwBZjfDD2_pGZ8+=6b3Qk8P724OfevA@mail.gmail.com> <CC134A62-DCD5-495F-AB37-42DC11CB0A0B@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/KtVkiIWKH-Z1YyR9dS40SrnGyl4>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 08:57:02 -0000

.. and that is why we run two-in-a-box in most roles so that the conflicted person can step aside.

Stewart

> On 10 Jan 2020, at 01:33, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes.  And it at times has been an issue.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2020, at 3:59 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:40 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-09 10:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 
>>> I concur with Richard here. The IETF is most successful when we get
>>> input from people who are directly involved in the technologies that
>>> we are standardizing, but of course that very often means that they
>>> are working on those technologies for their employer. And indeed
>>> one of the criteria we often use to ask whether someone is a good
>>> fit for leadership is whether they have this kind of non-standards
>>> "day job" expertise.
>>  
>>  
>> That, IMO, is why we encourage their participation in WG discussions and on lists.
>>  
>> But it is dangerous to have those parties directly involved in decision making. The actual and potential COI (esp. perceived potential COI) undermine the decisions made - even when those decisions are otherwise reasonable.
>>  
>> I.e., think of this as protecting the value of IAB decisions (and, as Ben noted, there are many, esp. during appeals, that are of a substantive nature that COI benefits).
>> 
>> And yet we routinely allow have WG chairs and ADs who are deeply involved (and whose employers are deeply involved) in the technologies that are being standardized.
>> 
>> -Ekr
>> 
>>  
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email