On 5/3/19 5:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'll just note that your conclusion there is by no means
clear to me. That may derive from me having the luxury of
having a $dayjob that allows me to remain unfashionable:-)
But that doesn't make me wrong, I think.
Let me try to be more concrete.
There was an 18-month period in 2004 and 2005 during which I remained
active in the IETF, while my take-home income from the LLC I belonged to
was covered entirely (and then some) by a contract between the LLC and a
third party for whom I was designing and implementing a system. For a
variety of reasons, the third party did not wish to have it publicly
known that the feature in question was being outsourced, and so the
agreement required that such a relationship not be disclosed.
Had I chosen to stand for a NomCom-selected position during that time
period, I would have considered that relationship relevant from a COI
perspective, and would have sought (and likely been able to successfully
negotiate) a contractual amendment from the third party that allowed
disclosure of the relationship to the NomCom, under the condition that
the information was not conveyed outside that body.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable state of affairs, but it's one
that would be disrupted by a requirement for NomCom to make this
information public. Keep in mind that we already struggle to find
willing and capable individuals to serve in many of the NomCom-selected
positions. It is not in the interest of the IETF to further winnow such
pools.
/a
