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

[Bound, Jim]

I am no thinking that we need ISOC to play a role in the issues of
process and fairness more to create the balance.  Not technical appeals
but if one believes the process was broken or something that is
question/perception regarding conflict of Interest.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:49 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: IESG restructuring (Re: Example of the One 
> Liners out ofcontext)
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> 
>