Well said Melinda!
Just basic abuse prevention and balance.
Just basic abuse prevention and balance.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Jun 29, 2020, 3:49 PM -0700, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
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
