> On 30 Jun 2020, at 14:06, Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In terms of procedures for selecting nomcom and for nomcom operation, I do not understand what a more extensive COI disclosure would do. > What rules would apply to the selection for nomcom? That not more than two people with significant (say 10% of their income or time) interest in any entity (other than the IETF) served concurrently. > What effect would it have on nomcom participation? I do not know. > Note that we currently do not expect folks to recuse from votes that include subjects from their own company. And such recusal would be somewhere between impractical and impossible. I disagree, it depends on the degree of sensitivity and controversy. That is one reason why we run two in a box for a lot of tasks. I have certainly stepped aside from controversial issues to let a peer run the show where the decision was sensitive and thus strict neutrality was required. - Stewart > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/30/2020 6:25 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >>> On 29 Jun 2020, at 23:48, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> >>> 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, >> I agree with that. >>> and this seems like a reasonable >>> and low-impact defense mechanism. >> “This" here is the use of employment as a poor approximation for what we should have which is a conflict of interest declaration. >>> It's still the case that nomcom >>> members can and will be fierce advocates for appointing someone >>> from their own company, >> That needs delving in some more detail. It is wrong for someone to be an advocate because the person works for the same company. BUT it is not work if the Nomcom member knows that person well and is convinced that they have the required qualities for the post, including the required degree of independence of thought and action. >>> but by balancing nomcom membership there is, at >>> least, a builtin defense against appointing someone completely >>> unsuitable. >> However, we need to balance against COI, not just do it the easy way. >> Indeed I think there really needs to be a COI register as you would have in any decision making position in most bodies. Take an example, I sit on the Board of the UK Amateur Radio Society (RSGB). At every Board meeting I am asked if I have any conflict of interest not already declared. The officials at the IETF have a much larger commercial and “regulatory” impact and yet we skirt the subject with a very crude proxy. >> - Stewart >
