Please god NO... I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep DEEP conflict of interest problems. I mean if we are not working on the things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not. Saying that WG chairs can not work for companies that need the efforts of the WG seems like setting up a big failure, there are checks and balances, you don't like what the chairs of a WG are doing, talk to the ADs, don't like what the ADs say go to the IAB... This is a documented process. I do not know about the DNS WG, but most working groups that I am aware of also have two co-chairs, usually from different companies/areas - and I know that my co-chair and I have to be in agreement on "char" descisions, reducing the effect of one of us having a massive conflict of interest. Please do not require conflict of interest rules to enter the IETF, this isn't the government, we NEED this to work Bill Strahm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:34 PM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: D. J. Bernstein; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:53:28 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -0000, > D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to> wrote > a message of 26 lines which said: > > > DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, > > writes: > > For me, this is too much. Now, on the *one* hand, I'd be surprised indeed if the chair of DNSEXT had NOT been paid by somebody to do BIND consulting somewhere along the line. On the other hand, if Olafur is in fact making a living doing BIND9 development and coding for ISC or one of their clients, that might be called a "conflict of interest" when the issue at hand is that a specific document is "too BIND9 specific". Personally, I'm OK with Olafur making money doing BIND. I'm even OK on him possibly making more if the draft becomes an RFC in its current state. I admit I've looked through RFC2026 and found nothing about disclosure of conflict of interest(*). I hate making more work for the AD and IESG, but I think at least a "We've talked to Olafur and do/dont think there's a problem" is called for. (*) I'll let wiser people than I decide if there should be such a section in a son-of-2026.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech