Subject: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:33:40 -0700

Hi Dave, Narelle,

I have been assigned by the ISE to review 
draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01.  I apologize for the delay in 
delivering the review.

Summary:

draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 discusses about the the nature and 
practicalities of IETF attention to its diverse participation and to 
the requirement for professional demeanor.

Comments for author:

Section 1 of the document provides background information about the 
Internet Engineering Task Force.  The rest of the section discusses 
about issues relating to the conduct of IETF participants.  Section 2 
discusses and diversity, bullying and harassment.  Section 3 
discusses about constructive participation.  Section 4 discusses 
about unconstructive participation.

Is there is a link between diversity and professional 
conduct?   Would, for example, an aggressive culture cause diversity 
issues?  My response to those questions would be that there is a 
link.  Would would be the view of the average reader, especially 
someone who does not know much about the IETF, after reading the 
document?  The IETF might be viewed as an organisation comprised of 
"well-funded, American, white, male engineers" with a harassment or 
bullying problem to fix.

Section 2.2 does not fit in as it break the flow, i.e. the draft is 
discussing about the IETF issues, it then discusses about the nature 
and extent of bullying, then gets back to the IETF participation, and 
after that discusses about the IETF Track record.  It then discusses 
about participation again.  I suggest that the authors consider 
looking at the material in the draft as follows:

   1. Background information about the IETF

   2. Documented cases of problems with adequate consideration to anonymity

   3. What did the IETF do about it

   4. What was wrong in (3)

   5. What do the authors propose (optional)

The draft does not reference RFC 3774.  Shouldn't that RFC be taken 
into consideration for Section 1 given that the section provides some 
historical information?

The question I have to answer is why should this document be 
published in the Independent Submissions Stream.  Could the authors 
help me answer that question?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:00 -0700

SM,

As always, thank you for such thoughtful comments.

Some quick responses.  (These are my own; Narelle might have others.)

On 3/18/2015 4:33 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Is there is a link between diversity and professional conduct?   Would,
> for example, an aggressive culture cause diversity issues?  

I thought (and think) that the draft discusses exactly this point, and
at length.

It specifically asserts that aggressive behavior is a disincentive for
participation by those from polite societies.  And it asserts that
bullying and harassment -- one hopes those qualify as unprofessional
conduct -- marginalize targeted participants.

> My response
> to those questions would be that there is a link.  Would would be the
> view of the average reader, especially someone who does not know much
> about the IETF, after reading the document?  The IETF might be viewed as
> an organisation comprised of "well-funded, American, white, male
> engineers" with a harassment or bullying problem to fix.

That quoted text described the /origins/ of the IETF.  Later text noted
that participation now is far more open and diverse.

> discussing about the IETF issues, it then discusses about the nature and
> extent of bullying, then gets back to the IETF participation, and after
> that discusses about the IETF Track record.  It then discusses about
> participation again.  I suggest that the authors consider looking at the
> material in the draft as follows:

Section 2 describes the nature of diversity, the nature of attempts to
ensure it, and the nature of some important problems that work against
it.  Section 2.2 focuses on a distinctive aspect of IETF culture that
works against practical diversity.  One could have other sections
discussing other factors, but you won't be surprised to hear that I
think harassment and bullying are central issues in the IETF culture
that work against constructive diversity.

> The draft does not reference RFC 3774. 

The draft is not seeking to cite or deal with a wide range of issues.
Nor is it trying to review other discussions of surrounding issues.

Those issues are important and that RFC is useful.  But I don't see that
citing it alters the current draft meaningfully.

>  Shouldn't that RFC be taken into
> consideration for Section 1 given that the section provides some
> historical information?

The historical discussion is focused solely on forces that have worked
against diversity and against constructive, respectful discourse.

> The question I have to answer is why should this document be published
> in the Independent Submissions Stream.  Could the authors help me answer
> that question?

The draft is not a specification. It does not offer normative statements
about policy or practice.  Rather, it is a think-piece, that is, a
discussion of issues.

What would be the benefits in having it processed through the IETF
stream?  What would be the risks?

In considering Independent stream, my feeling was (and remains) that a
document of this sort is a personal offering.  Hence the Independent stream.

If there were some sort of outpouring of interest in having it in the
IETF stream, that would be fine, but I'm not expecting it, nor do I
think it significantly affects the document's relevance or utility.

But again, thank you for the comments.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:12:35 -0700

Hi Dave,
>think it significantly affects the document's relevance or utility.

I'll response to the specific point about the Independent Submissions 
Stream and follow up on the other parts in a few days.

Here's how I look at the document in respect to publication in the 
stream.  The document is about the IETF.  The IETF has a stream.  The 
default place for it to be published would be in that stream.  I also 
look at how a documents fits within the Independent Submissions 
Stream.  It's quite straightforward for a specification as there is 
some guidance about that.  It is less obvious for this draft as I 
have to figure out in which other category to fit it in.

The benefit of processing through the IETF Stream is that it could be 
read as meaning that the IETF is mature enough to handle 
self-criticism.  The risk is that the draft may not gain consensus.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:12:35 -0700

Hi Dave,

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:11 -0700

On 3/18/2015 7:12 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> default place for it to be published would be in that stream. 

SM,

You appear to be saying that all documents "about" the IETF have to be
submitted through the IETF stream.

I can't tell whether you see your use of 'should' as your personal
opinion or as an RFC stream requirement.  I am not aware of any
requirement that matches what you've said.  Quite the contrary.  I
believe the scope of the Independent stream covers a personal document
like this entirely reasonably.

So the issue is whether it is somehow better to have it go through the
IETF stream.  I see two factors to consider.  One is whether there is
sufficient community interest in the document?  The other is whether
there is significant benefit in going through an IETF rough consensus
approval process?  I don't see the answer being yes to either question?
 Some benefit, perhaps, but not enough to be worth the considerably
greater effort.

>  I also
> look at how a documents fits within the Independent Submissions Stream. 
> It's quite straightforward for a specification as there is some guidance
> about that.  It is less obvious for this draft as I have to figure out
> in which other category to fit it in.

Perhaps you should review the requirements for Independent Stream.  For
example, on:

     https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

     "The independent submission stream allows RFC publication for some
documents that are outside the official IETF/IAB/IRTF process but are
relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of
technical and editorial quality. "

That's pretty general and this document certainly falls within that
scope, as I read it.

> self-criticism.  The risk is that the draft may not gain consensus.

As I said in my previous note, that would be fine if there were more
community interest.  The draft has been around for quite awhile but has
received minimal comment.

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:22:01 -0700

Hi Dave,
>submitted through the IETF stream.

If I am writing a draft about diversity in the IETF (I wrote one 
previously) I would initially try to get it published within the 
IETF.  If there isn't the outpouring of interest I would look for 
another venue.

>like this entirely reasonably.

It is not a RFC stream requirement.  I'll comment more about this below.

>  Some benefit, perhaps, but not enough to be worth the considerably

Ok.

>That's pretty general and this document certainly falls within that

The requirement is quite generic.  I cannot assess the level of 
technical quality as the draft is not a technical specification.  As 
for the editorial quality the draft is well-written but it is not 
that crisp.  The draft is at least relevant to a part of the Internet 
community.  I usually refer to RFC 4846 before making a 
recommendation about publication in the Independent Submissions Stream.

I suggest not considering the publication steam as a concern as we 
had this conversation about it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:06:54 -0700

Hi Dave,
>Some quick responses.  (These are my own; Narelle might have others.)

[snip]

>conduct -- marginalize targeted participants.

[snip]

>that participation now is far more open and diverse.

[snip]

>that work against constructive diversity.

[snip]

>citing it alters the current draft meaningfully.

[snip]

>against diversity and against constructive, respectful discourse.

I'll comment about the content of the draft in this message.

I am not surprised to hear that harassment and bullying are viewed as 
central issues.  I am fine with the publication of a personal view 
about that and I'll commend the authors for taking up the challenge.

I read the Introduction section.  It is well-written and it looks 
good.  The following text caught my attention:

   "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
    demeanor."

I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF 
attention" was not clear to me.  From the above response I'll pick 
the following:

   (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF)

   (b) bullying and harassment

I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that 
the average reader can easily understand that the central issues are 
(b) and the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b).

I agree that citing RFC 3774 is not meaningful.

In the Introduction Section:

   'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process.  Nomcom is itself a potentially
    diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.'

If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue:

   "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high
    number of female candidates, not a single one was selected."

Quoting text from the draft:

   "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen
    as reflecting IETF culture generally."

That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor 
"well-funded, American, white, male engineers".  The current IESG 
members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html  There 
are three female members.  The female members are well-funded, 
American and white.  Is it the opinion of the authors that "much 
diversity" is about the male and female question only?  Section 2.1 
mentions several other variables.  However, the rest of the draft 
does not contain any discussion about those variables.

The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and 
Professional Conduct".  Section 2.2 is about professional 
conduct.  Section 3 and Section 4 are about participation.  I suggest 
following a "participation and professional conduct" angle as the 
content of the draft does not discuss about economic status or demographics.

 From Section 3.1:

   "In speech, it means speaking more deliberately, a bit more clearly
    and a bit more slowly than one needs with close collaborators.  When
    language is cryptic or filled with linguistic idiosyncrasies and when
    speech is too fast, it is dramatically less accessible to a diverse
    audience.

 From a diversity perspective the speaker would also have to avoid 
some cultural references, e.g. not expecting that all the 
participants are familiar with baseball.  From a participation 
perspective the above comes out as "speak slowly" instead of "get 
down to the level of your audience if you would like people to 
understand what you are saying".

 From Section 3.2:

   "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse
    contribution for further development.  Engagement means that it easy
    for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through
    constructive interaction."

Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider 
input.  The above explains it as "making it easy for existing 
participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions".

Section 5 is about security considerations.  How would the IETF be 
affected if it is no longer viewed as:

   (a) a credible open venue

   (b) a credible productive venue

   (c) a venue where there is diversity

Nits:

In the Introduction Section:

   "IAB members and IAOC members"

I suggest expanding the acronyms on first use as it was done for "IETF".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:26 -0700

On 3/19/2015 2:22 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I suggest not considering the publication steam as a concern as we had
> this conversation about it.

ok.  thanks.

d/