Re: Running code

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:51:35 +0200
    From:        avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>
    Message-ID:  <3D8AFDB7.8050609@sm.luth.se>

  | then there is a greater 'liabilty' for the company with the multiple 
  | representation then there is for the ietf.

Quite possibly.   But we should be protecting everyone involved,
including the IETF as a whole, the nomcom members, and their employers,
from suspicions, or accusations, of bias of impropriety.

  | i do beleive that the can of worms this opens for the entire
  | 'at the ietf we are individuals & not the minions of a company'
  | issue should be approached very carefully.

I agree.   Everything in this area needs to be approached carefully.
There's no big hurry here, we have 9-10 months (or so) before we need
to have worked out the procedures for the next nomcom.

What's relevant now is that we begin that careful examination of the
issues (including the one of how we identify the organisation - for
which Brian's suggestion is fine for me, for now anyway), and not just
(without thought) decide that we should do nothing, because any activity
is too difficult.

kre