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

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 9 Jan 2020, at 18:59, 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:
>>
>> 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.

pretty relevant point, and very common.

Marc.

>
> -Ekr
>
>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>


> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss