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

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 9 Jan 2020, at 17:59, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:40 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-09 10:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

One important difference with chairs (and even ADs) is that their 
technical/standardization decisions can be appealed, where potential 
conflicts of interest can presumably be removed from the equation. 
That's not true of the IAB. So while I agree with Richard that it's the  
mainly the personnel and finance decisions that need a CoI policy, it's 
probably also useful to have it apply in those relatively few 
discussions of the IAB that result in an actual *decision* (handling 
appeals, perhaps some odd liaison activities). So it's really the third 
bullet in the proposal that needs to be reduced.

That said, for all of this I think transparency is the most important 
bit, not the recusal. So long as everyone is open about their possible 
biases, the others in the discussion can take those into account and 
adjust. The NomCom processes can be used for people who do not 
appropriately disclose. And on that note: It's not just recusal that 
should be minuted; if someone discloses a perceived or potential CoI, 
whether or not they recuse, that should be noted (appropriately redacted 
if necessary).

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best