On 9 Jan 2020, at 18:59, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:40 PM Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2020-01-09 10:46, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> I concur with Richard here. The IETF is most successful when we get >> input from people who are directly involved in the technologies that >> we are standardizing, but of course that very often means that they >> are working on those technologies for their employer. And indeed >> one of the criteria we often use to ask whether someone is a good >> fit for leadership is whether they have this kind of non-standards >> "day job" expertise. >> >> >> >> That, IMO, is why we encourage their participation in WG discussions and >> on lists. >> >> But it is dangerous to have those parties directly involved in decision >> making. The actual and potential COI (esp. perceived potential COI) >> undermine the decisions made - even when those decisions are otherwise >> reasonable. >> >> I.e., think of this as protecting the value of IAB decisions (and, as Ben >> noted, there are many, esp. during appeals, that are of a substantive >> nature that COI benefits). >> > > And yet we routinely allow have WG chairs and ADs who are deeply involved > (and whose employers are deeply involved) in the technologies that are > being standardized. pretty relevant point, and very common. Marc. > > -Ekr > > >> Joe >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
