Subject: Change of Affiliation

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:40:00 +0100

Hi everybody,

I started a new position as Ericsson Research this month. With Magnus Westerlund taking over AD responsibilities from Spencer during the Prague IETF-104 meeting, this will put us into a situation where both transport ADs will have the same affiliation.

First, I would like to quickly mention that it wasn’t as easy as I was hoping to find a new position in industry that would support me in my AD role and I am really happy that this finally worked out and I can serve till the end of my term in 2020.

Coming back to the situation where we will have two ADs with the same affiliation in the same area. This situation is of course not desirable and doesn’t happen very often, however, it is not the first time. I informed the NomCom and IAB about my affiliation change as soon as I was able to, which was in January. At this time the NomCom already prepared to announce the selected candidates but had not announced them yet.

During IETF-104, Magnus will take over Spencer’s groups as the new responsible AD, including those groups that have active wg documents that I co-author, while I will keep my responsibilities for the same groups I have so far. We believe there is no direct conflict in managing these groups as neither my documents nor Ericsson with any other documents is one of the main drivers or contributors in these groups. A situation where at least one author and the responsible AD have the same affiliation is less rare and usually not necessarily seen as a conflict of interest, as least for wg documents where other individuals have been involved in the process and consensus was built by the whole group. However, whenever we get into a situation where a potential conflict or bias could be assumed, we will ask for the help of other members in the IESG, e.g. by shepherding a conflicted document by another AD outside the transport area if necessary. Still, if you think there is a conflict or bias that we overlook or are not handling appropriately, please talk with us, the rest of the IESG, or,
alternatively, the IETF chair and we will handle this carefully.

Last, I also would like to take the opportunity to thank Spencer for this great service in keeping the transport area running. It was a pleasure working with him and he provided important contributions to the IESG with his experience and expertise. Gladly, we will have a great successor with Magnus, who has also already a lot experienced as AD and in the transport area in general. So, big thanks Spencer and welcome Magnus!

Mirja

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:08:18 +0100

Mirja,

Congratulations on your new role!  I have every confidence that you’ll do a fine job at Ericsson, and that you’ll continue to do a fine job as an AD, and I am entirely unconcerned about you properly handling conflicts of interest.  I hope that we can still get together on rare occasion in Zürich.

Eliot

> On 13 Mar 2019, at 13:40, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:26:57 -0700

Hi,

On 2019-3-13, at 6:08, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Congratulations on your new role!  I have every confidence that you’ll do a fine job at Ericsson, and that you’ll continue to do a fine job as an AD, and I am entirely unconcerned about you properly handling conflicts of interest.

+1

And thank you for proactively sending this note!

Lars

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:34:19 -0400

Sent from my mobile device

> On Mar 13, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

+1 and best of luck in your new role.  I also have every confidence that you will manage the role well and properly handle conflicts of interest.
+1

Kathleen

---

From: "Roni Even (A)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:58:14 +0000

+1
Congratulation on your new Role and having worked with Magnus in the past at the IETF I see no problem
Roni

From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:34 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Mirja Kühlewind; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: Change of Affiliation

On Mar 13, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi,

On 2019-3-13, at 6:08, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]<mailto:lear@cisco..com>> wrote:

+1

Kathleen

Lars

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:02:03 -0400

Congrats on the new position!

I feel very confident you and Magnus will work out any issues.
I think we have ample experience dealing with this issue.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:08:56 +0100

Thanks everybody! Great to hear support!

> On 14. Mar 2019, at 09:58, Roni Even (A) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> +1
>

---

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:05:48 +0000

+1!

On 3/14/19, 06:03, "ietf on behalf of Michael Richardson" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:40:16 -0500

> I think we have ample experience dealing with this issue.
Like what?

Regards,
Behcet

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAlyKUMsACgkQgItw+93Q
> 3WXZcgf9EggPGEuhfuBXz6btNaiqwA9YfqNVxxNRm703DKnJ0L7uXzz3IftuRRuw
> R5QyOaUNW4HHIivH24DRGAqUUtPfXrbRV95+M8W8zBNaVUwdhxzuGaHKwu6Xxjl7
> 5NbHwWriJibJpnTWSEqMHHvgPu9z7oZENTTtOgyxX3s8/6eDaD6iXGagUel50/xL
> WAjzyMxAJdVDfnap+7GZGAj4++kh8QUYQCbR1Fj5vFMgpeegiYRHUAQFADfWD+83
> y8jzmn+phHL+NP3yraeXY14iyYV2bMlEfzUv5M9MZXs/wlcd6/SpGGltMOYymbTN
> kln5yIl9EFB8ypjFuXU2uwW2OBN54Q==
> =hhVr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:43:21 -0700

Dear IESG,
At 05:40 AM 13-03-2019, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>documents is one of the main drivers or contributors in these 
>groups. A situation where at least one author and the responsible AD 
>have the same affiliation is less rare and usually not necessarily 
>seen as a conflict of interest, as least for wg documents where 
>other individuals have been involved in the process and consensus 
>was built by the whole group. However, whenever we get into a 
>situation where a potential conflict or bias could be assumed, we 
>will ask for the help of other members in the IESG, e.g. by 
>shepherding a conflicted document by another AD outside the 
>transport area if necessary. Still, if you think there is a conflict 
>or bias that we overlook or are not handling appropriately, please 
>talk with us, the rest of the IESG, or,

There can be potential impartiality issues when an author and the 
Responsible Area Director share the same affiliation.  There is a 
thread in the mailing list archives about that topic.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:04:38 +0000

> thread in the mailing list archives about that topic.
Yes, this is one case. However, in most cases that should not be an
issue if that is a WG consensus document. However, AD sponsoring a
document with Ericsson authors is not something I would do. Then I would
ask another AD to process that document and make the judgment if this is
suitable or not.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:27:24 -0000

Of course, we know we can trust Mirja and Lars. It's not about impartiality,
it's about the appearance of impartiality.

SM is right, that we've been here before. No one died. 

Alia and I sent a similar mail way back in February 2014. You can probably
find it in the archives. At that time, we opted to completely micro-manage
ourselves by writing details designed to cover every eventuality.

I think that Mirja and Lars have opted for fewer words, but the message is
the same.

It'll all work out fine.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
Sent: 15 March 2019 15:43
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Change of Affiliation

Dear IESG,

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:41:17 -0000

Oh, s/Lars/Magnus/

😊

These men all look the same to me.

A

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 15 March 2019 16:27
To: 'S Moonesamy' <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Mirja Kuehlewind' <[email-masked]>; 'The IESG' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Change of Affiliation

It'll all work out fine.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
Sent: 15 March 2019 15:43
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Change of Affiliation

Dear IESG,

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:01:05 -0500

Speaking as the unindicted co-conspirator, who Magnus will be replacing ...

> I think that Mirja and Lars have opted for fewer words, but the message is

Ironically, the first RFC I was responsible for after joining the IESG was
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7026/, which neither Adrian nor Stewart
could shepherd because they were both recused. So they moved the document
to an AD outside the area, and that's why there is one RTG RFC that
includes me in the datatracker history.

That was coming up on six years ago, but after we requested datatracker
mods that allowed Benoit to focus on YANG, it is now possible to assign
entire working groups to an AD outside the area. That's not likely to
happen with Mirja and Magnus as ADs, but my point is that we've had the
ability to do the right thing for a while, and we have even more ability to
do it now.

And if it doesn't work out fine, the community is not shy about explaining
what "fine" needs to be. So THEN it will all work out fine.

Spencer

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:21:19 -0400

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>...

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H-_4fo37bnqqzu9KAle2zKmQZNk%3D/

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court,
 Davenport, FL 33896 USA  [email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:46:16 -0700

Hi Spencer, Adrian,
At 01:01 PM 15-03-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>Ironically, the first RFC I was responsible for after joining the 
>IESG was https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7026/, which neither 
>Adrian nor Stewart could shepherd because they were both recused. So 
>they moved the document to an AD outside the area, and that's why 
>there is one RTG RFC that includes me in the datatracker history.

I am not commenting about the above as my previous message was not 
about that.  There were comments on a thread [1] previously.  Is it 
appropriate or not to perform an "AD review" of a WG draft for which 
the Area Director and author share the same affiliation?  There could 
be a perception of partiality.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F4chLD2lQLmMRs-M8liwE6T67to

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 19:52:54 -0500

Hi, SM,

> be a perception of partiality.

There certainly could be.

I believe the practice at IETF over a period of years is to focus on
technical points, so one would hope that an AD would confine an AD
Evaluation to technical aspects of a draft.

These are pretty much all visible to the working group (at a minimum), so
one one would hope that a biased AD Evaluation would be challenged by the
document shepherd, working group chairs, draft authors, and working group
participants (I list these in no particular order).

If that perception of partiality can't be resolved as part of normal
discussion, the appeals process described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.5 would apply, and the
working summary of that process that I've been working under is "any
decision can be appealed".

Beyond that ... much like practices around IPR disclosure, we expect all
participants, including ADs, to participate as individuals, and one side
effect of that expectation is that our reputations are our own - saying "I
think this because my funder tells me to think it" damages our own
reputations, rather than reflecting on our funders.

Beyond that ... the Nomcom position review process, and the recall process,
described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437 would apply.

My experience - and that may vary for other folks - is that the only way to
participate successfully in the IETF for any extended period of time is to
make sure that we focus on technical considerations, and the cases where
I've seen someone's opinion change as a funder changed have not reflected
well on those participants.

Spencer

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 01:00:49 +0000

> well on those participants.

I second what Spencer says here - this is a criterion
I've applied when figuring out which opinions deserve
attention. My experience has been that, over time, it
is a fine way to sort wheat and chaff.

S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 22:39:28 -0700

Hi Stephen, Spencer,

I prefer not to comment further on anything in any of the topic(s) on 
this thread [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1.  Please do not read it as meaning that you said anything which 
could have caused any unplesantness.