I said "perceived" conflict of interest.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least a half dozen or so participants
(hereinafter "ranters") that are so convinced of their own infallibility, that
the only way they can rationalize being turned down for something (document
submission, a change of a specific word in a specific paragraph, WG chair, etc)
is that someone is out to get them. Giving them more ammunition to make such
claims (e.g. obviously X is out to get me because I'm running against him)
seems to me to be somewhat of a bad idea.
Couple this with the dozen or so participants who have loudly and repeatedly
stated their belief in the evilness of various ADs both with and without
objective evidence and even I might start getting confused about whether the
original ranter is ranting or is making a point I should consider. If I'm a
nomcom member who hasn't been paying attention to past rants (because they're
on a WG mailing list for example), I might be tempted to impute fire where the
I believe over the years our ADs have been pretty free of conflict of interest
- but the perception of such conflict of interest has at times taken on a life
of its own.
At 03:11 PM 9/15/2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
This isn't only about AD power, it's about perception of conflict of
This might be a specious argument, but there are enough conspiracy theorists
This entire line of thinking gets scarier and scarier. If it has any validity
as concern, then we already have a very deep problem. Candidacy often is
already known among some of the IETF community, including among incumbents and
other candidates. So the conflict of interest problem is already present...
if your point is valid.
Having candidacies be more publicly declared might change the statistics, but
it won't change the basic reality.
Ietf mailing list