IESG restructuring (Re: Example of the One Liners out ofcontext)

Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Tue May 27 11:12:27 CEST 2003


Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> > if we are serious about this discussion having a process director is a =
> > very bad idea is my input.  The IETF chair does this job.  Lets not add =
> > more heads to the process to solve problems.
> 
> The root issue here was conflict-of-interest avoidance,
> which is something that hasn't been discussed much yet.  Are
> people feeling that we're okay on that?

Conflict of interest is simply unavoidable. I could probably list
ten conflicts of interest that apply to me this morning. *

The issue is how to prevent conflicts of interest from tilting
the metaphorical level playing field, and the best answer we have
in general is to put checks and balances, and appeals mechanisms,
in place.

If the existing General AD handles the reform process, there will be
one set of conflicts. If another AD is added to handle it, there will
be another set of conflicts. Choose your poison.

   Brian

*
1. I have a colleague in the IESG
2. I have a colleague in the IAB
3. The IETF Chair works for a company that has a strategic relationship with
   my employer.
4. I am an ISOC Trustee
5. I am a former member and chair of the IAB, hence part of the charmed circle
6. I drafted the current IAB charter
7. I am involved in the Global Grid Forum, an overlapping standards body
8. I have colleagues heavily involved in W3C, an overlapping standards body
9. I am co-author of a draft currently under IESG review
10.My former WG was really, really slow to complete its charter


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list