It's interesting that it's seen by quite a few people who have responded to this idea that an AD who is paid by the IETF would be _less_ neutral than an AD who is paid by some company that's sending them to the IETF. I would like to think that the ADs that nomcom appoints would be neutral in either case, but it seems to me that the incentives for an AD to play favorites are worse, not better, if the AD works for a company than if they are paid by the IETF, all other factors being equal. Of course, if companies that want to buy ADs were able to do so, that would be bad, but if the funding commitment is made in advance of AD selection, I don't see how that would happen. Maybe I'm just naive?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:37:32PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> As to the third, we have no data.
>
> You see where I'm going with this? :)
I do, but it isn't really true that we have no data about what
happens when SDOs have directly-paid staff with an interest in
advancing "their" standards. I can think of a few examples off the
top of my head, though I am loathe to name them.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
