Who decides what IRC publishes.

Why it exists

IRC's Resources library is community-generated: practitioners write, IRC curates and publishes under the author's name. That model only works if someone credible holds the line on quality and independence. The Committee exists so that what IRC publishes is useful to practitioners, written by practitioners, and free of vendor pitch.

How a submission travels

A draft, outline or topic arrives. The Resources Lead triages it and assigns a reviewer from the Committee. The reviewer works with the author: light editing for clarity, fact-checking, house style. The Committee approves publication by simple majority, the Chair signs off the final version, and it publishes with the author's name on it. Rejections come back with a written reason, and authors keep all rights to their work either way.

Who sits on it

Five to seven members, all drawn from the Practitioner Forum, all currently practising: in-house CISOs and deputies, IR leads and managers, in-house responders, external IR consultants. The commitment is roughly four to six hours a month. Terms run two years, staggered so half the Committee rotates each year, with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

Four named roles: a Chair (rotating annually, casting vote, signs off every publication), a Resources Lead (owns the submission pipeline), a Boardroom Playbook Lead (the practitioner accuracy check on board-facing content), and members-at-large who carry review assignments and bring sector breadth.

The independence rules

• No Outbreach seats. Outbreach personnel cannot sit on the Committee during the founding operating partner period. A structural firewall, not a comment on individuals.
• No votes on your own firm's work. Members recuse from submissions by their own employer or recent clients, rolling twelve months.
• One Partner Firm seat at most, with an extra conflict declaration and recusal on anything touching that firm's commercial scope.
• Declared interests, standing. Every member declares employer, recent client work and board positions on appointment, and updates it as things change.
• The operating partner does not get a vote. Neither do founding partners or Partner Firms. Publication decisions belong to the practitioners.

The editorial standard

Short and concrete: practitioner voice, written by someone who has done the work; plain English a board-level reader can follow; no vendor pitch and no product placement; every Resource carries the author's name and role. The Committee can evolve the standard, and material changes go to the Practitioner Forum for comment first.

Accountability

Working drafts and reviewer comments are confidential; anonymised case material is handled under Chatham House rules. From year two, an annual Transparency Report publishes the numbers: what was published, what was rejected and the headline reasons, and the Committee's composition with declared conflicts in summary form.