ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Myths of the IESG: Reading documents is the problem

2005-08-09 17:25:06


--On Tuesday, 09 August, 2005 16:37 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

...
And the third one is the case in which an AD is not _a_
contributor to the work of a WG, but becomes the (or a)
primary source of technical input to the WG. 

I am having trouble parsing this.

How can one be a/the primary source without being a
contributor?

I intended to say something like "...in which an AD is not
simply one contributor among several other contributors to the
work for the WG, but, instead, takes the lead role within the WG
of providing technical input.


And the notion of an AD who has contributed
technically to a WG in some significant way then pushing back
during IESG review if the WG reaches some other conclusion is
pretty close to intolerable.  

It is worse than that.  Even if the AD keeps their mouth (and
fingers) entirely silent during IESG considerations, they will
have held undue influence over the process, if they make
substantial technical contribution AND are the cognizant AD.

Yes, of course.
 
The term "conflict of interest" has its definition precisely
in the danger that comes from this sort of confusion of roles.

But that's really for a different discussion thread...

Indeed.  And, in our environment, I suggest that one can have a
serious conflict or roles and relationships without meeting the
usual tests for a conflict of interest.  In terms of impact on
the standards process, there is, of course, no practical
difference between the two cases.

     john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf