You asked... 😊 > 1. The emerging view of the community is that an RPC employee *contributing* to a > draft is sufficiently distant from the RPC process to avoid any conflict of interest. > It appears to me that *authoring* a draft however does introduce a conflict of > interest (COI) as part of the RPC role is to enforce specific standards that authors > must comply with, which is a standard COI that is controlled by separation of powers. > There is an existing situation where RPC staff author RFCs on behalf of the RPC but > that is different from a personal role. There is no clear line between "authoring" and "contributing". This is, I think, a misunderstanding of how the IETF works. An "author" may simply be an editor who compiles the consensus-view text. A "contributor" may supply most of the text in a draft. > I would be interested therefore to hear which of the following ways forward you > think is best (for now let’s leave aside whether policy or contract is the best way > to capture this): > > a. Prohibit RPC staff from *authoring* non-RPC drafts (not contributing to, just authoring). > b. Prohibit any RPC staff that author a non-RPC draft from any processing or discussion of that draft in their RPC role. > c. No restrictions at all. If I am only allowed a choice of those three, then c. But I prefer... d. No restriction except that the staff shall at all times make clear their affiliation (both in emails and in the posted document). > 2. RFC 8711 is clear about the role of the LLC that "It has no authority over the standards > development activities of the IETF", which is taken to mean that there should be a bright > line between the work of the LLC and the standards process. The concern is that the LLC > and the IETF Executive Director (and the Secretariat because they act on behalf of the LLC) > have significant power in the the IETF, even if it is not directly about the standards process, > and if allowed to participate in the standards process could utilise that power to "put their > finger on the scales". I see "no authority over" as very different from "participate in." In fact, I see the former as a statement of fact that contradicts the concern that the LLC and IED (and Secretariat) could influence the standards process and "put their finger on the scales." > With that explanation would anyone object to maintaining the restriction on staff and > Secretariat being involved in the standards process or do you think there is not a COI > that needs to be guarded against? Since the standards process is entirely consensus based, attempts to interfere are visible to the community and are rectified. Again, you offer a choice of two things, and I refuse the choice 😊 Yes, there is a COI that needs to be guarded against. No, I object to your proposed way of guarding against it. I believe that sufficient safeguard is achieved by full and frequent disclosure of affiliation. > 3. The proposed policy includes the following statement with regard to development > of RFCs that nobody has yet suggested is inappropriate: > >> Contractors are also expected to ensure that it is always clear to those being engaged >> with, if the contractor is engaging as a contractor or as a volunteer, as assumptions >> may vary between people and situations. > > Does anyone object to that same clause applying to any interaction with the NomCom? Almost. When a person engages in their contracted role, that must be made clear. When a person with a contracted role engages as an *individual* (please don't say "volunteer" as that has so many peculiarities) they should, nevertheless, disclose their contractual role. (It is a rare thing that someone's opinions and desired outcomes are not in some way shaped by their employment experiences and prospects.) Once again, Jay, very many thanks for holding this discussion with the community and in the open. Best, Adrian
