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.
ahh. tnx.
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.
Would that the "of course" reflected a consensus view on the current IESG, but
apparently it does not, based on a recent exchange I had with them. Quite
surprising, really.
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.
We are so used to thinking of "conflict of interest" as involving greed or an
equivalent, reprehensible self-interest, but it needn't.
Conflicting ideals are, all the same, conflicts of interest.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf