On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Given how Luigi could have simply said "i withdraw from serving", an
> > interpretation like the one Michael and you are alluding to would just
> > create an incentive in similar future case for volunteers to not be fully
> > forthcoming as to their motivation to withdraw so as not to punish
> > colleagues in a new employer they just joined.
>
> That incentive has its own response, once detected.
I can not parse that.
> > Thats quite silly.
>
> Conflict of interest is not about ONE possible scenario that YOU (or anyone else) find valid. It???s about whether ANY of US consider ANY possible scenario unacceptable.
>
> What you call ???silly??? some of us call ???ethics???.
Sure, goes the other way around as well. I do not only think NomCom chair
was completely in her right to decide as she did i also think that both she and
Luigi acted ethical. I find the request to remove both Luigi and Tal
unethical and the proposal to consider this to be the desirable
reading of the rules silly because it seems to be purely based on
the presumption of having to protect nomcom against a very improbable
evil scenario.
Cheers
Toerless
> Joe
>
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
