Notices by Eliot Lear (eliotlear@mastodon.social)

@ravelin I interpret that as the ends justify the means. But perhaps they do, sometimes?

@Hex If someone asks me to do something unethical, I will say that it is unethical and not do it. And I will face whatever consequences come with that refusal. That is the ethical thing to do.

@knack No, that's not what I said. I said that lying is wrong. I didn't say resisting is wrong.

@djb Of *course* it's fabricated because my point is that or something like that is what one would say to object to the charter. And as you should well know by now- you're not new at this- one AD doesn't make a decision on a charter, but rather it's the entire IESG. That's another protection against CoI. And even right now, you can comment to the entire IESG up until the 15th, after which it will be discussed on the 19th. Details at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sshm/ballot/.

@djb And again, the job can't get done if we require everyone to recuse on a large portion of decisions. It's simply not possible. Standards organizations are *riddled* with these sorts of conflicts. That's the world in which we live. What you can do is show where there is bad work. Deb's job is to see that the process was followed and only at the end to spot issues that have not been properly addressed.

@djb (1+3) He hasn't said "don't form a working group", and he hasn't objected to the charter. Yes, he's annoyed by the conversation. (2) Yes. Deb has far less conflict than most industry participants, as she is retiring. If the IESG applied the standard you suggest, no industry or government participant could serve, putting an end to the IETF and any industry-driven effort. That would leave who exactly?