Subject: [Diversity] Anti-harassment policy

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:34:49 -0000

Hi,

I would like to solicit continued debate of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-harassment/

The debate has mainly been happening on [email-masked] and it may be more
efficient to make sure that all of the discussion is in one place.

The email that started the discussion is at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ietf&q=harass and includes
some unresolved issues that need further debate. 

The authors would really like to receive input that we haven't already seen both
about the issues we see as unresolved and about anything else that bothers you.
(Supportive feedback will also be accepted :-)

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:36:29 +0100

Hi Adrian and Pete,

I will try to be happy, funny and reasonable, to answer my concerns about
diversity issues related to your draft.

A lot things may bother me :-) however, I did not understand your input
here, do you mean we discussed something in this list we should have done
at the main IETF list.

I started to dislike posting at IETF because it's not diverse. I prefer
this diversity list mostly. I was told by one nice USA person yesterday
that many USA participants don't know what is the meaning of diversity. So
may be add the definition of it well help. Comments below,

> about the issues we see as unresolved and about anything else that bothers

What bothers me are 1) the slowness of unresolved issues. 2) the cow boy
style in few inputs from participants (we are not in a movie of Good Bad
and Ugly), so may we shoot documents, we may shoot texts, we may shoot
paragraphs, we may shoot processes, we MAY not shoot humans (i.e. Just
because they are Indians, Africans,  Women, Religious, Weak, non-expert,
new-comers, etc.)

3) no one stops cow boy style, so are we in a BAD organisation or a COW
BOY organisation.

4) Some don't respect others, and that is a BIG problem.

The use of words in IETF as: hat, and shoot makes the thought of west
movies which we all like to watch, but we do not like to live inside it.

There are common sense issues that need solutions. What are
the insensible points that need mor discuss to be solved? I think that may
be all my points were not in the draft, so I wait.

Overall, please define diversity in the draft. Then it can be discussed
better related to diversity otherwise your draft has no diversity approach.

Thanks that you (the authors) post the subject and draft here in our
diversity list (IETF list is NOT diversity compatible).

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:27:59 -0000

Hi Abdussalam,

It was really good to actually meet you this week and to see the person behind
the emails.

> here, do you mean we discussed something in this list we should have
> done at the main IETF list. 
>
> I started to dislike posting at IETF because it's not diverse. I prefer this
> diversity list mostly. I was told by one nice USA person yesterday that 
> many USA participants don't know what is the meaning of diversity. So

OK. It is generally more efficient to have all discussions of the same concept
in the same place so that everyone can join in. 
However, I hear your point and understand your reasons.

[snip]

> What bothers me are 
> 1) the slowness of unresolved issues.

OK. I see how this can fit with the anti-harassment process. 
We could set targets for investigation by the Ombudsperson.
I am reluctant to set absolute deadlines because circumstances can vary, but
guidance is easy.
Do you have suggestions for timelines?

>  2) the cow boy style in few inputs from participants (we are not in a
>  movie of Good Bad and Ugly), so may we shoot documents, we may
>  shoot texts, we may shoot paragraphs, we may shoot processes, we
> MAY not shoot humans (i.e. Just because they are Indians, Africans, 
> Women, Religious, Weak, non-expert, new-comers, etc.)

Yes. We all (you, me, them) need to learn to moderate and improve our
communication styles.

I don't think there is any action on this document from your comment. It might
be more related to Dave's document.

> 3) no one stops cow boy style, so are we in a BAD organisation
> or a COW BOY organisation. 

Interesting observation.
I don't think we are a cowboy organisation or a bad organisation.
We have some folk who act as cowboys (they might not actually be cowboys :-) 
I think we have some management issues that we need to work on.
Advice on process for handling those issues would be valuable. That is "make it
stop" is understood, but how to do that is harder. 
As Jari said the other night (and there was a comment from the floor) it doesn't
scale for the IETF chair or the IESG to respond to email beahviour in real time.

As with the previous point, I don't think there is any action on this document
from your comment. It might be more related to Dave's document.

> 4) Some don't respect others, and that is a BIG problem. 

Yes. I have this fault. I respect people's rights but not always the people. I
need to work on that, I guess.

> movies which we all like to watch, but we do not like to live inside it. 

Yes. The use of language can carry connotations that were or were not intended
by the speaker. It is a remarkably rare communication skill to select words that
are sensitive to your audience. It is like speaking a foreign language even for
a native speaker. It is especially hard when the speaker is using a phrase that
is very deeply embedded in their culture and they are distracted by their
enthusiasm for the subject matter.

As listeners, we also have a responsibility to be flexible and open.

> There are common sense issues that need solutions. What are the
> insensible points that need mor discuss to be solved? I think that
> may be all my points were not in the draft, so I wait. 

Don't wait!
This is a discussion.
Pursue your points and suggest text.

But...
Be aware of the specific scope of this document. It is about the anti-harassment
policy. It is not a general place to capture all related issues. If we try to do
that it seems unlikely to me that reaching speedy consensus and actually getting
an implementation of the anti-harassment policy will happen. Sometimes it is
better to break the problem space into separate pieces and work on them in
different documents.

By this I mean that I am not rejecting your ideas, just suggesting to put them
in different places so as to make sure that this document is not delayed.

> Overall, please define diversity in the draft. Then it can be discussed better
> related to diversity otherwise your draft has no diversity approach. 

Just as we are very cautious about defining "harassment" in this document, I
would be extremely worried about defining "diversity" in this document. My
reasoning is that it is quite possibly a deep rat-hole -- the anti-harassment
policy can operate well without these definitions. In essence, I expect the
Ombudsperson to be well aware of what constitutes harassment, but also to
consider it in the views of the Subject.

However, it may be worth this group producing its own definition "diversity" for
publication.

So, bottom line, I take an action from your point 1) only, and even for that I
would welcome some further input.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:57:52 +0100

Hi Adrian,

Thanks. Comments below,

> It was really good to actually meet you this week and to see the person

It  was nice experience, I never done long remote chat then meet before, I
only seen it in movies. An African PhD student studies in
Wales and communicates remotely with IETF experts remotely for 2 years and
then meets them in London. I actually think it is a great
experience/story that needs documented as I-D, and if people like it,
I will submit to IETF as historical.

> this

Ok, I don't mind answering more of my thoughts as if you prefer in one
place. So I will respond in IETF but not much discuss only with good people
if I got motivated.

Thanks Adrian for all you done for me, which were most important reason why
I meet IETF. Also I don't forget to thank Karen for her encouraging, help
and advises.

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:31:31 -0800

Hi Adrian,
>(Supportive feedback will also be accepted :-)

In Section 4:

   "Anyone who makes a good faith report of harassment or who cooperates
    with an investigation shall not be subject to retaliation for
    reporting, complaining or cooperating, even if the investigation,
    once completed, shows no harassment occurred."

The following questions are not meant to be answered by the authors:

   Who determines whether the report was made in good faith?

   What happens if the person does not cooperate with the investigation?

The (above) text prompts the reader to think about whether there can 
be retaliation.  The reason to protect the person reporting the 
matter from retaliation is so that the problem does not go unnoticed.

Would someone report: Person X is harassing Person Y?  No [1].  It is 
up to the draft to turn that into a "Yes".

One of the principles mentioned by the IETF is openness.  The victim 
may believe that he or she is doing something wrong as nobody else 
encountered a similar problem.  Openness is a way to encourage people 
to come forward.  It is a way for (unrelated) people to see for 
themselves whether the system is fair.

Regards,
-sm

1. meddle - interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that 
is not one's concern

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 21:43:03 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
At 07:57 06-03-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>It  was nice experience, I never done long remote chat then meet 
>before, I only seen it in movies. An African PhD student studies in 
>Wales and communicates remotely with IETF experts remotely for 2 
>years and then meets them in London. I actually think it is a great 
>experience/story that needs documented as I-D, and if people like 
>it, I will submit to IETF as historical.

Speaking for myself, I find the above interesting.  I did not pay 
attention to what is written above when I first read the message.  It 
is mentioned that you are in Wales and that you are a PhD student.  I 
would assume it is not a problem to have a conversation in English [1].

About a year ago, I posted two messages:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/edu-discuss/current/msg00260.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/edu-discuss/current/msg00261.html

The two persons did not reply to the messages.  I am curious about 
the story.  Everyone has a story.  Unfortunately, we [2] do not take 
the time to listen to the story.  I would advise you against posting 
the experience/story as an Internet-Draft.  I will not tell you why 
as that is something for you to discover. :-)

Regards,
-sm

1. There is the IELTS requirement.
2. It does not mean that the readers of this mailing list share my view.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:38:07 +0100

Hi SM

I don't know your real name but I did reply, and I did not meet you but did
reply :-)

There are nice experience, ugly experience, bad experience, story
experience and hidden experience. We want diversity nice/ugly experience to
make all future experiences nice. The real name of the persons does not
matter, it is the story that matters.  So that is why I said African
student, not a named person, the name said in that I-D can be Abraham. It
should be a real story which makes development to IETF participants future.

Usually some people don't talk about their experiences. Even IETF
participants don't do that. However some don't respond to messages for many
reasons we may not know why. IMHO if there
are experiences/experiments related to IETF that we can get progress from
it, then those experiences should be published, or announced in IETF.

So my thoughts were how I-D can help IETF progress not help any reader.
Usually that story was for newcomers to like reading. So it is a newcomer
or newbird or newbee story that make guidance and show IETF reflection,
what was wrong with IETF and how leaders are fixing it in relation to that
story.

That story proposals for historical I-Ds will help Dave's work on conduct,
help diversity progress, and add to newcomer tutorials. I proposed a new
African student IETF story, I would like to read the story of new
European women IETF story, and new Asian student IETF story, and others
similar. That makes more diversity. It is not good watching/reading of
western movie stories or watching two participants shooting which will make
IETFers become more like cow boys :-)

Comments below,

AB

On Friday, March 7, 2014, SM wrote:

>> It  was nice experience, I never done long remote chat then meet before,
>> I only seen it in movies. An African PhD student studies in Wales and
>> communicates remotely with IETF experts remotely for 2 years and then meets
>> them in London. I actually think it is a great experience/story that needs
>> documented as I-D, and if people like it, I will submit to IETF as
>> historical.
>>
>
> attention to what is written above when I first read the message.  It is
> mentioned that you are in Wales and that you are a PhD student.  I would
> assume it is not a problem to have a conversation in English [1].

I have conversation in many languages. It happens in IETF that many
conversation are not English. Diversity even in languages.

> The two persons did not reply to the messages.  I am curious about the
> story.  Everyone has a story.

 The story is a story only if the two persons meet. So did you meet those
persons. I am never interested of reading a story of just messages but I
want thoughts and interaction and understanding and analysis.

For example, I don't get replies from Dave also but you get replies from
him, the reasons are with Dave. I got once a private message from one
IETF guy and he told me why he does not post replies to me, so I got
that experience.

>  Unfortunately, we [2] do not take the time to listen to the story.  I
> would advise you against posting the experience/story as an Internet-Draft.
>  I will not tell you why as that is something for you to discover. :-)

Many in life volunteer their experience for better and best practices.
I don't know what you mean by you advise. However, you may misunderstood
the aim and objectives of any story posted to IETF. The main principle is
to develop IETF. Each organisation has a R&D department. The story does not
subject persons it subjects the facts, history, development, experience to
help change and develop others.

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:54:30 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
At 23:38 06-03-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I don't know your real name but I did reply, and I did not meet you 
>but did reply :-)

I did notice the first part of the sentence. :-)

I wasn't at the meeting or else we would have met.

>That story proposals for historical I-Ds will help Dave's work on 
>conduct, help diversity progress, and add to newcomer tutorials. I 
>proposed a new African student IETF story, I would like to read the 
>story of new European women IETF story, and new Asian student IETF 
>story, and others similar. That makes more diversity. It is not

There is an article at 
http://micadeyeye.ngportal.com/index.php/2014/03/05/getting-more-out-of-the-ietf-for-africans/ 

>  The story is a story only if the two persons meet. So did you meet 
> those persons. I am never interested of reading a story of just 
> messages but I want thoughts and interaction and understanding and analysis.

I may have met one of them.  My answer would be "no" as I am not sure.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:10:32 +0100

On Friday, March 7, 2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> make all future experiences nice.
>

Sorry, meant to say: we want to know about diversity nice/ugly
experience  to make guidance to IETF future with all experiences becoming
nice.

AB