IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 10 January 2020 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 866D3120131; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:33:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 hsEKHjHPNLKG; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 0C0D2120288; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:33:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wIU3yYqsr66mRzy6RdJQad6Ex8uxKgKu30EpExjdPaM=; b=D6UZJs9vpLoDzSTPXv+IRX/Z/h oQucsYAR7iLjeRy47vNlEh00sq//W6a8w+JweuvVcYUxUVzswNjpqo74EJIn1bWwOwaQdx0mBxOi/ JN7tksFhITvrc2QN02xsV99GgJ12N9z0EiYKn1wbiQ1InhofdgJKyhXX020xUqzshT7r/YWcvwTf8 T2b3hU9JFn+1TIeuxUPEYnVM3BAh34UvDRLya6q8MMJzO+niz4rUS6uBaneCjIrCURPg6cdbOnwQf zlQyb7TcoybbuINAW4m+6OhIV1XjbVKPuGaCcAa3xG1MSFDFMJd9Af+BS5xvMTfoRflydtpCmjwRc Q8t2XElg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:54648 helo=[192.168.1.2]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ipjAe-001v1m-S5; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:33:09 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1DABDE5E-3ECF-4D58-B95A-026E399AA6AE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOEXoerwqmNDHOnwBZjfDD2_pGZ8+=6b3Qk8P724OfevA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 17:33:02 -0800
Cc: 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
Message-Id: <CC134A62-DCD5-495F-AB37-42DC11CB0A0B@strayalpha.com>
References: <CABcZeBOEXoerwqmNDHOnwBZjfDD2_pGZ8+=6b3Qk8P724OfevA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17C54)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/wc505S2r2OylXMKkuqY_jW3-GVc>
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 01:33:12 -0000

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> 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
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email