The whole business of NomCom eligibility is based on the assumption that the list of eligible people can be generated automatically from objective date. Anything that requires human interpretation is simply out of the question. It doesn't scale. Even human interpretation of affiliation seems like a burden on the NomCom chair, but would be a bit hard to automate. Calling for human interpretation of CoI declarations is unreasonable, as far as I can see, and exposes the NomCom chair to challenge. Updating the objective eligibility criteria has its own list (eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx). Regards Brian On 01-Jul-20 01:06, Joel Halpern 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? > What effect would it have on nomcom participation? 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. > > 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 >> > > . >
