On 6/29/20 2:10 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Sure some come to IETF to represent and market their sponsor's solutions > but those should be treated as incidents and controlled as early as > possible. It's natural and desirable that people bring their companies' technologies to the IETF, I think, if for no other reason that we'd like to incentivize, I think, open technology/standards and interoperability. What we *don't* want is companies successfully gaming the leadership selection process in a way that compromises the quality of the IETF's output, or that favors a particular technology on the basis of something other than technical merit. IETF process needs to be as open as it can be without damaging the organization itself, and this seems like a reasonable and low-impact defense mechanism. It's still the case that nomcom members can and will be fierce advocates for appointing someone from their own company, but by balancing nomcom membership there is, at least, a builtin defense against appointing someone completely unsuitable. > So if I may I would recommend that if at all required - such limit is to > be imposed to vendors only and never applied to operators or research > organizations or academia. Oh, if only we had the problem of too many participants or volunteers from operators or research organizations or academia ... Melinda -- Melinda Shore melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx Software longa, hardware brevis
