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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 16 January 2020 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 2DFD1120855; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EvCFJaN7dlwb; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1FC120803; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1irwoO-0008TN-GC; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 04:31:16 +0000
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:31:15 -0800
Message-ID: <m21rs0qay4.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <b6525973-32dd-1ac2-d354-d39aa916082b@gmail.com>
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <20200115221637.GA32014@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAOj+MMFaXnWs1Au6HWZ_CMFt4oyYUExPt2C_r9VnStRaUgf_ng@mail.gmail.com> <b6525973-32dd-1ac2-d354-d39aa916082b@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/RIUUjN7ak2PTV4zucIGykVXgESQ>
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 04:31:20 -0000

> I think that's easy. Read the arguments that you, as a candidate, made
> to your employer to justify you spending time and travel budget on IAB
> membership. If those arguments do not explain how IAB membership will
> positively affect your employer, answer "No". But in that case, I
> rather doubt that your employer would have allowed you to accept the
> nomination. Mine certainly wouldn't have.
> 
> In other words, the only credible answer to this question is "Yes".

i know this is terribly old fashioned and silly of me.  but some see
roles as public service for the good of the internet.  and some of us
are spoiled brats whose employers support them willy nilly.

randy