Subject: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:02:57 -0800

It seems like this would be a good time for an update.  A few
comments:

. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
  granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
  may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
  made explicit.  One that really popped out at me while
  reading this is that we may need to be clearer that people
  are participating in the IETF as individuals and
  contributions are evaluated in that light

. I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior;
  that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough
  consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build
  consensus rather than to "win."

. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of "violating
  guidelines

. I think it was a good idea to remove text that could be
  discouraging to new participants.

Melinda

---

From: Phill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:15:43 -0400

>  discouraging to new participants.

I think it would be useful to point out that there is a big difference between getting a draft published as an RFC and getting the proposal deployed.

The point of the IETF process is that it provides an opportunity to build the consensus necessary to deploy the proposal. The consensus is the real product, the documents are secondary.

Which is why I find the folk who work as consultants claiming to 'grease the skids' of IETF process and get documents through are doing their clients and the community a disservice. Yes, it is possible to get a document published through the backdoor. But doing business that way misses the opportunity to build consensus.

It is also the case that some consensus matters more than others. A proposal cannot be deployed without the support of people who write code and operate infrastructure that must be changed. So people who work to effect a back room carve up that cuts those people out of the process are wasting everyone's time

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:15:44 -0700

>    consensus rather than to "win."

+10.

Might be worth referencing Pete Resnick's draft; at this point, casting 
it as one person's 'exploration' of the concept might avoid taking it as 
official, while still treating it as useful.

By way of operationalizing the idea of discussing-to-build-consensus 
might be emphasizing both explanation -- to help people understand a 
view -- and modification -- to adjust the view based on feedback.

A characteristic of talking to win, rather than explore, is having a 
very rigid manner of making comments, essentially only re-stating a 
point.  By contrast, real discussion incorporates comments being made, 
rather than merely seeking to refute them.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:57:55 -0400

Pete, what is that draft waiting on before becoming an Informational RFC?

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:58:52 -0700

>   contributions are evaluated in that light

Yes.

>   consensus rather than to "win."

As a quick reply, it may be possible to put that under Item 2 in 
Section 2.  My preference would be to pick a comment from Ted Lemon {1]:

   "Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your
    own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be
    correct in contradicting your position."

and use the above to mention "sincere effort".

>. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of "violating

I added that based on a comment from Lars Eggert [2].  The word 
"breach" may be more appropriate.  I should have used the word 
"consequences" for Appendix B.

>   discouraging to new participants.

There was a comment from Lars Eggert [3]:

   '"when you begin to participate in a WG, maybe approach the chairs or
    longer-term participants in order get a view on whether the issues
    you wish to discuss fit the current work of the group."
    Rationale: I HAVE seen newcomers raise issues that were either outside
    the scope, or raise them in ways that got them a bad reception, and a
    little caution about how to get the best result is IMO good.'

My preference is for that to be part of the Newcomers tutorial and/or 
the Tao instead of a guideline for conduct.

At 11:15 31-08-2013, Phill wrote:
>I think it would be useful to point out that there is a big 
>difference between getting a draft published as an RFC and getting 
>the proposal deployed.
>
>The point of the IETF process is that it provides an opportunity to 
>build the consensus necessary to deploy the proposal. The consensus 
>is the real product, the documents are secondary.

It would be better to discuss the above as part of the tutorial material.

>It is also the case that some consensus matters more than others. A 
>proposal cannot be deployed without the support of people who write 
>code and operate infrastructure that must be changed. So people who 
>work to effect a back room carve up that cuts those people out of 
>the process are wasting everyone's time

Proposals which do not have the support of the people who write the 
code tend to be ignored by the people who write the code.

At 11:15 31-08-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Might be worth referencing Pete Resnick's draft; at this point, 
>casting it as one person's 'exploration' of the concept might avoid 
>taking it as official, while still treating it as useful.

My preference is to use "sincere effort".  I'll wait for Pete Resnick 
to argue why his draft should be referenced. :-)

>view -- and modification -- to adjust the view based on feedback.

I think that it would be good to have a discussion of that draft when 
Pete Resnick says that it is ready for discussion.

>point.  By contrast, real discussion incorporates comments being 
>made, rather than merely seeking to refute them.

The problem may be that it is not clear whether the point will be 
considered as valid.  There may be a view that restating a point is 
useful or else the point will be noticed.  In a long thread some 
points do get missed.  I'll mention an interesting comment:

  "I almost always get at least some private responses, and they inflict
   discomfort often enough for me to not enjoy this communication mode"

It is not possible to have a real discussion if people do not feel 
comfortable to discuss.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81864.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00222.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00243.html

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:50:41 -0400

Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process, I 
get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going to 
be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due diligent 
engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews, including 
increasing conflict of interest concerns.

There is a lost of engineering diversity when there is a lack or lost 
of industry representation. Folks who shy away, turned off or 
excommunicated based on leveraging conduct policies, we get a behavior 
I call "Consensus by Osmosis" -- rough consensus, higher potential for 
appeals and huge LC debates.

Too much rough consensus conclusions left to the WGLC and IETF LC that 
should and can be worked out before hand.

Ideally, I would like to see new external "APPEAL-LIKE" paths 
("Instant Replay Timeouts viewed by people in the booths") to help, 
settle, minimize serious issues in a WG before WGLC and IETF LC begins.

Perhaps this draft should has some statements about what is expected 
of the project leaders in the area of processing participant inputs. 
I think the draft should also define or describe:

    - Participants
    - Individuals
    - Project Leaders  (AD, CHAIRS, EDITORS?)

Ideally, proper professional conduct should include an expectation the 
leaders will be not be ignoring participants, individuals, industry 
peers and vice versa, of course.

-- 
HLS

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:52:44 -0700

Hi Hector,
At 14:50 31-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
>Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process, 
>I get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going 
>to be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due 
>diligent engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews, 
>including increasing conflict of interest concerns.
>
>There is a lost of engineering diversity when there is a lack or 
>lost of industry representation. Folks who shy away, turned off or 
>excommunicated based on leveraging conduct policies, we get a 
>behavior I call "Consensus by Osmosis" -- rough consensus, higher 
>potential for appeals and huge LC debates.

I don't find appeals to be a problem.  I don't find huge Last Call 
debates to be a problem.  Unpleasant behavior is a problem as it 
creates an unworkable climate.  I don't think that it is possible to 
build consensus in such circumstances.

Lars Eggert made the following comment:

   "I actually WANT this draft to talk about the CONSEQUENCES (posting rights
    getting taken away, personal attendance made impossible, etc.) of not
    following the code of conduct! I think that would be by FAR the most
    impactful addition we could make."

Some of the above is already possible (see Appendix B).

Anyone having concerns about conflict of interest can raise the 
concerns.  This draft does not prevent that from happening.  This 
draft is not about cross-area reviews.

>    - Project Leaders  (AD, CHAIRS, EDITORS?)

The roles are discussed in RFC 2418.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: William McCall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 23:41:41 -0500

> Some of the above is already possible (see Appendix B).
Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft would 
imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however 
inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and 2) use slang of some 
nature (which is quite arbitrary). I'd ask for the original phrasing to 
be more or less preserved (I see a few wording changes worthwhile) to 
avoid the implied absurdity.

The application of Lars' comment would potentially provide for penalty 
here, so I think it is worthwhile to fight this point now.

I promise I'll try not to use my generally unintelligible speech.

--WM

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:51:48 -0700

Hi William,
At 21:41 31-08-2013, William McCall wrote:
>Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft 
>would imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however 
>inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and 2) use slang of 
>some nature (which is quite arbitrary). I'd ask for the original 
>phrasing to be more or less preserved (I see a few wording changes 
>worthwhile) to avoid the implied absurdity.
>
>The application of Lars' comment would potentially provide for 
>penalty here, so I think it is worthwhile to fight this point now.

The original phrasing is as follows:

   "English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
    native language of many IETF participants.  Native English
    speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly and to limit
    the use of slang in order to accommodate the needs of all
    listeners."

The draft reuses the text.  That text could be rewritten as:

    English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
    native language of many IETF participants.  Native English
    participants attempt to accommodate the needs of other
    participants by communicating clearly.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 02:15:24 -0400

>     participants by communicating clearly.

That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to 
communicate clearly?

Scott K

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:40:38 -0800

> That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to 

Yes, but ...

I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
avoid highly idiomatic or stylized language - English that is not
taught to non-native speakers.  It may be better to say something
along those lines, although I don't think you can go too wrong
in remind people to communicate clearly.  (This is not entirely
unrelated to the seeking consensus issue)

Melinda