On 29-Jun-20 13:11, Rob Sayre wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:40 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I took it the opposite way: > If you do IETF work, and more than 50% of your time is working for "X" then you are considered to be an affiliate of "X" > > > Hmm. I think the IETF policy of treating everyone as an individual makes sense here. > > It can be difficult to unpack who is actually paying some tiny company or consultant. So, why bother? We bother in order to avoid a NomCom that is overloaded with loyalty to any one company. But I think Michael's question was reasonable: if someone spends 51% of her working hours on business for company C, of which half (25.5%) is IETF work, and another 49% on IETF work as an individual, is she treated as an affiliate of C for NomCom purposes? If so, why? I think it's a question that can't be answered. And BCP 10 (RFC 8713) says that it shouldn't be answered: 'Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the participants to make the process work.' So I'm not sure that there is any basis for the NomCom Chair to make rules here. It seems to me that volunteers are expected to state that they mainly work for company C if that is the case. If the IETF had wanted to make rules like: > People who contract with a company for more than 50% of their time spent doing IETF activities will be considered affiliated with that company. then the above statement about honor and integrity would not have been part of the BCP. Brian
