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

[James Kempf]

I'm still in favor of having a limited short term AD-ship for the
General Area to handle this. Personally, I'm not so concerned about
conflict of interest as about the perception of conflict of interest
which some seem to have. Also, one of the concerns expressed has been
AD burn out due to too large a work load, and so it does not make
sense to me to load Harald down with this and thereby potentially
contribute to that problem. My understanding from previous email is
that there is precedent for such an AD-ship, in the Standards
Management AD from 1990-1991. Finally, I think it should be strictly
limited in duration, designed to sunset within a year at most, so we
don't end up with the kind of standards management bureaucracy that
Randy has identified as a problem with other standarization groups.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: IESG restructuring (Re: Example of the One Liners out
ofcontext)


> 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
>