Hiya, On 04/05/2019 00:25, Adam Roach wrote: > 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. Yes, there are grey areas here. My take is that the above might or might not be a reasonable state of affairs, and that it depends on the companies involved and the position for which one may have volunteered. But if there were a real chance that the third party you mention above could reasonably be perceived by the community as representing a potential CoI for the relevant nomcom-appointed position, then I personally would expect that potential CoI to be disclosed to nomcom during their selection process *and* then to the community should the person be appointed by nomcom and confirmed. Whether nomcom ought disclose to the confirming body is a detail on which I'm uncertain, but I would take the stance that should the appointee not be able to disclose that potential CoI to the community, then they really ought not accept the position. I do recognise that we don't have IETF consensus on that disclosure being a MUST or SHOULD, but I wish we did. (And in passing, I note there's nothing to stop any nomcom appointee disclosing whatever they choose.) Cheers, S. > > /a > >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
