I obviously disagree with Joel on this, and continue to consider that an
absence of a definition is more problematic than the problem of defining
one.
One definition might be to set a limit on people with common financial
or loyalty conflict of interest at an level in their network. That works
for both the commercial case and the government case (which is not
really covered by the current implicit definition). It also works for
the personal case which again is not really covered.
- Stewart
On 09/07/2019 17:21, Adrian Farrel wrote:
And yet...
As a consultant, my primary affiliation is my consulting company. Yet there seems to be a feeling that I should disclose (at least to the NomCom chair) a list of my company's major customers, where "major" means more than x% of the company's income stream.
I think that I agree with Stewart that the ambiguity in the definition makes for interpretation issues such that if my company had major dealings with Foo Corp and the selection process identified me and two employees of Foo Corp it would not be clear whether we should all serve or not.
(I have a personal opinion about this, but that is not the point. The point is that there is no obvious guidance in the RFC.)
Best,
Adrian
--
Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages
• Tales from the Wood
• More Tales from the Wood
• Tales from Beyond the Wood
• Tales from the Castle
Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
Or buy a signed copy from me by post
*** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy ***
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: 09 July 2019 17:03
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Future adjustment of nomcom company limits (Was: Re: Nomcom 2019-2020: Result of random selection process)
The exclusion of a definition for "Primary Affiliation" was deliberate.
And as far as I can tell it is necessary. I do not know any definition
that will crisply catch all the cases. I am sure we could spend a long
time wordsmithing something that still did not work.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/9/19 11:53 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
As fas as I can see RFC7437 does not define "Primary Affiliation" which
seems an unfortunate omission.
In this complex globalized industry, the absence of such a definition,
can make inclusion or exclusion from the final list arbitrary.
- Stewart
