BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but
your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to
be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the
process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
The IETF's standards processes need to be redesigned so that they do not
allow for Conflicts of Interest to occur. Period.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
SNIP-
Dave,
2. The NOMCOM is independent of the IESG and the IAB. Hence,
consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve NOMCOM
problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.
If that had happened, it would have been a CoI. As Leslie and I
already made clear, it didn't.
Brian
The problem Brian is that this is an instance when we have to believe you
and many of us don't. So it doesn't matter whether what you are saying is
true
or not. The possibility that "it" happened and that this had effect on the
NOMCOM process is the issue, and since the process is designed the way it
is - this is a problem that needs reworking.
The issue is that you are making a statement of fact with no evidence or
recourse for us if you are lying. And so the only thing we have to rely on
is your
word. The problem is that after the shenanigans that many researchers and
academics have played in creating fraudulent standards - hey look at North
Korea's Cloned
Animal scandal... we have a crises of faith - and its faith in the IETF and
IESG to not be looking out after the member's interests..
The point is simple - Standards Processes need to be mechanically better
than the word of the person/staff who is inside of the standard process' or
administering processes. That means that potential COI's MUST NOT be
designed into the processes if creating and verifying standards efforts.
It also means that no one (IETF Management) gets to make any arbitrary
decisions as to where and when things happen or if they happen in any
approved initiative.
In fact - Anywhere where there is a single thread of control in the
Standards process, those threads MUST happen entirely in the open to be
transparent and fair for all.. and usually the better method is to have no
single threaded control processes anywhere in the Standards Process.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf