Regards Brian Carpenter Department of Computer Science The University of Auckland http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ (I am currently sending all mail from this address due to a Gmail bug. I can still receive via Gmail.) On 18/02/2018 02:34, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > that specific point did not come up (as I recall) in the BOF discussions where the > question of the specific callout of ADs & WG Chairs was brought up > but it does seem to me to be a legit worry ADs sometimes recuse themselves from a topic "for cause". I don't recall whether we ever wrote down what sort of conflict of interest might trigger this. I assume that the scope of a recusal could be a particular draft or as much as a whole WG. And presumably one reason might be a conflict with the interests of the AD's employer, including IPR issues. Clearly, a WG chair with knowledge of an unpublished patent application is in a very tricky position and certainly needs to recuse themself for relevant drafts. Brian > > Scott > >> On Feb 17, 2018, at 8:16 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> --On Saturday, February 17, 2018 06:22 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner" >> <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> see RFC 8179 (BCP 79) section 1.m >>> >>> m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a >>> Contribution, as described above, or in any other way >>> acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion >>> relating to the IETF Standards Process. Without >>> limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a >>> Working Group Chair or Area Director constitutes >>> "Participating" in all activities of the relevant >>> working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area. >>> "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual >>> Participating in an IETF discussion or activity. >> >> Scott, >> >> A question about the above, with the hope that it will never >> become important. I believe that traditionally any and all ADs >> in a particular area are jointly responsible for every WG in >> that area, i.e., that splitting WGs in a given area among ADs is >> an administrative convenience, not a change of responsibility in >> the sense above. Is that still the case or is the above >> language a back door effectively creating mini-areas with one AD >> each? And, if the latter, should assignments of WGs to ADs be >> something that is a bit more transparent than it has been, e.g., >> something that should be part of the review at WG charter time, >> subject to review and appeal when changes are made to >> responsibility for existing WGs (even if the changes are due to >> AD turnover), and even something that should be explicitly >> visible to the Nomcom? >> >> thanks, >> john >> >> >> >> > >
