> 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. ahh. tnx. > > 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. Would that the "of course" reflected a consensus view on the current IESG, but apparently it does not, based on a recent exchange I had with them. Quite surprising, really. > > 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. We are so used to thinking of "conflict of interest" as involving greed or an equivalent, reprehensible self-interest, but it needn't. Conflicting ideals are, all the same, conflicts of interest. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf