--On Tuesday, 09 August, 2005 16:37 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>> And the third one is the case in which an AD is not _a_
>> contributor to the work of a WG, but becomes the (or a)
>> primary source of technical input to the WG.
>
> I am having trouble parsing this.
>
> How can one be a/the primary source without being a
> contributor?
I intended to say something like "...in which an AD is not
simply one contributor among several other contributors to the
work for the WG, but, instead, takes the lead role within the WG
of providing technical input.
>> And the notion of an AD who has contributed
>> technically to a WG in some significant way then pushing back
>> during IESG review if the WG reaches some other conclusion is
>> pretty close to intolerable.
>
> It is worse than that. Even if the AD keeps their mouth (and
> fingers) entirely silent during IESG considerations, they will
> have held undue influence over the process, if they make
> substantial technical contribution AND are the cognizant AD.
Yes, of course.
> The term "conflict of interest" has its definition precisely
> in the danger that comes from this sort of confusion of roles.
>
> But that's really for a different discussion thread...
Indeed. And, in our environment, I suggest that one can have a
serious conflict or roles and relationships without meeting the
usual tests for a conflict of interest. In terms of impact on
the standards process, there is, of course, no practical
difference between the two cases.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf