Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:13:42 -0800

Hello,
At 07:03 03-11-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct'
>   <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-12-01. Exceptionally, comments may be

The draft provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in 
the Internet Engineering Task Force.  The Guidelines recognize the 
diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual 
respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.

The "Note Well" ( https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) states that:

   "A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of
    process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements."

It may be of interest to IETF participants to read and understand the draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:23:20 -0200

SM,

I notice that there are not mention of forbidding any kind of harassment in
your draft (or may be I oversight it). Perhaps this could be a good place
to introduce the anti-harassment policy and to get consensus on it.

Regards,
as

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:

> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction
>    in the Internet Engineering Task Force.  The Guidelines recognize the
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:20:05 -0800

Hi Arturo,
At 14:23 06-11-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
>I notice that there are not mention of forbidding any kind of 
>harassment in your draft (or may be I oversight it). Perhaps this 
>could be a good place to introduce the anti-harassment policy and to 
>get consensus on it.

The lack of any mention of harassment is intentional.  Harassment is 
a serious matter.  It is much more than about transgressing the 
guidelines for conduct.  In theory someone might be able to take 
legal action against the IETF or the person responsible.  In simple 
terms the IETF guidelines for conduct is to "play nice".

In my personal opinion it would be better not to discuss about 
harassment in the draft.  I am open to adding text if the document 
shepherd recommends it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:39:37 -0200

SM,

I do not think it is a call for the shepherd to decide to add it or not,
but to us as a group.

Also, I do not see why included the text or not will stop somebody to sued
the IETF, but I am not a lawyer.

And, as recent events of discussions about harassment, I am firmly believe
that this issue has to be addressed in the draft, if not as a whole policy
at least to mention that any type of harassment (sexual, racial, etc.)
should not be done.

/as

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:20 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I notice that there are not mention of forbidding any kind of harassment
>> in your draft (or may be I oversight it). Perhaps this could be a good
>> place to introduce the anti-harassment policy and to get consensus on it.
>>
>
> The lack of any mention of harassment is intentional.  Harassment is a
> serious matter.  It is much more than about transgressing the guidelines
> for conduct.  In theory someone might be able to take legal action against
> the IETF or the person responsible.  In simple terms the IETF guidelines
> for conduct is to "play nice".
>
> In my personal opinion it would be better not to discuss about harassment
> in the draft.  I am open to adding text if the document shepherd recommends
> it.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:29:33 -0800

Hi Arturo,
At 16:39 06-11-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
>I do not think it is a call for the shepherd to decide to add it or 
>not, but to us as a group.

The document shepherd is there to see that the issues are 
addressed.  What I meant was that if I do not address an issue the 
document shepherd could, for example, tell me "you forgot to address 
X", or "there is agreement to add text about Y and you did not do it".

>Also, I do not see why included the text or not will stop somebody 
>to sued the IETF, but I am not a lawyer.

I don't know the implications.

>And, as recent events of discussions about harassment, I am firmly 
>believe that this issue has to be addressed in the draft, if not as 
>a whole policy at least to mention that any type of harassment 
>(sexual, racial, etc.) should not be done.

There is a policy at 
http://www.ietf.org//iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html 
I welcome any comments about how to fill the gap is the policy is 
considered as inadequate.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 02:28:05 +0000

Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Dated : 06.11.2013

Is draft title guide of interaction or is it principles of conduct or is it
for only personal interactions?

The use of the word firework is not suitable in such document, please
remove or replace.

What is the guide if the principles are violated, I think it needs to
mention that on draft, as to refer to an RFC.

If this draft is a guide it should say guidelines in section 2, but if the
main section is principles then the title should say principles of conduct.
Why the author and contributors mixed between IETF guidelines and
IETF principles, I think they are different.

I think the principles of conduct are not complete, and the aim to build
good discussions or reasonable consensus needs more additional principles,
four is not enough.

The conduct is not only about emails' discussion (seems by the draft
mentioning a), I recommend introducing f2f discussions and remote
discussions and how they interact which should add to the principles.

The draft does not mention some interactions in the IETF. IMHO it is not
only among individuals but also adding bodies and managers.

I want to see the words fair and equal in the draft. Please add: All
IETF participants should/must treated equally and fairly.

There are three important items in principles of conduct: 1) intentions, 2)
ideas and decisions, 3) actions/inputs and their ways/words used. The draft
mixes them without showing their values/principle guiding the
IETF participant's behavior .

It is good that draft principle 1 is for intentions and actions. The
principle 4 is more about work/doc actions and work. Principle 2 and 3
mostly for ideas and treating all with fairness. However, I recommend the
principles should focus more and target the three important items of
conduct with more clarity, which may enable adding more clear principles to
be easy to follow by participants.

Once a IETF WG chair or AD replies saying I am not to educate other, he
is mixing between discussing with knowledge and  who is authorise to
judge, but forgot we should be doing interaction/conduct as a team
work discussions not team discriminations.

More comments related may be added.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:48:07 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
At 18:28 06-11-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>Is draft title guide of interaction or is it principles of conduct 
>or is it for only personal interactions?

The title of the draft is "IETF Guidelines for Conduct".  The 
interaction or personal interaction text is about people extending 
respect and courtesy to their colleagues.

>The use of the word firework is not suitable in such document, 
>please remove or replace.

I'll suggest the following text:

   "Cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion and try to
    provide data and facts for your standpoints so the rest of the
    participants who are sitting on the sidelines watching the
    discussion can form an opinion [SQPA]."

>What is the guide if the principles are violated, I think it needs 
>to mention that on draft, as to refer to an RFC.

There is some text about that in Appendix B of the draft.

>If this draft is a guide it should say guidelines in section 2, but 
>if the main section is principles then the title should say 
>principles of conduct. Why the author and contributors mixed between 
>IETF guidelines and IETF principles, I think they are different.

I see that you noticed that.  I'll suggest changing the title of Section 2 to:

   "Guidelines for Conduct"

>I think the principles of conduct are not complete, and the aim to 
>build good discussions or reasonable consensus needs more additional 
>principles, four is not enough.

The draft does not provide guidance on how to build good discussions 
or consensus.

>discussions and how they interact which should add to the principles.

The guidelines in the draft can be extended to face-to-face 
discussions.  For example,

   "IETF participants discuss ideas impersonally without finding fault
    with the person proposing the idea."

applies for face-to-face interaction.

I don't know how to cover remote discussions in the draft.

>The draft does not mention some interactions in the IETF. IMHO it is 
>not only among individuals but also adding bodies and managers.

The draft is about people.  There are BCPs which discuss about the bodies.

>IETF participants should/must treated equally and fairly.

In my opinion the above is already covered in RFC 2026.

>There are three important items in principles of conduct: 1) 
>intentions, 2) ideas and decisions, 3) actions/inputs and their 
>ways/words used. The draft mixes them without showing their 
>values/principle guiding the IETF participant's behavior.
>
>principle 4 is more about work/doc actions and work. Principle 2 and 
>3 mostly for ideas and treating all with fairness. However, I 
>recommend the principles should focus more and target the three 
>important items of conduct with more clarity, which may enable 
>adding more clear principles to be easy to follow by participants.

My response about the title of Section 2 might address some of the 
above.  Please note that the draft does not discussion about 
decisions.  That is covered in the relevant process documents.  The 
fourth point in Section 2 is about participants contributing to 
ongoing work.  How to contribute is less about conduct and more about 
making the information about ongoing work accessible to 
everyone.  There is an expectation that everyone will contribute in 
his or her own way.

I asked someone from South America to review the draft.  The feedback 
I received is that it is easily understandable by Portuguese speakers 
( 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00205.html). 
I haven't seen any other feedback mentioning that the draft is 
difficult to follow.

>Once a IETF WG chair or AD replies saying I am not to educate other, 
>he is mixing between discussing with knowledge and  who is authorise 
>to judge, but forgot we should be doing interaction/conduct as a 
>team work discussions not team discriminations.

I don't know the context of the above.  It is up to the person to 
determine whether he or she has made a sincere effort to understand 
the other person engaged in the coversation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:04:46 +1300

Hi,

Some comments.

1) I object to the change in the first sentence of the Introduction:

"The work of the IETF relies on cooperation ..." has become
"The work of the IETF relies on collaboration...".

I really think that "cooperation" is a significantly better word.
I want more than collaborators in the IETF (people who labor with
me). I want a spirit of cooperation. Also, "collaborate" has one very
negative meaning in English.

(Please compare http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperate
and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate.)

2) In the item "4. Individuals are prepared to contribute to the ongoing
work of the group", I quite understand why some text was considered
objectionable and was deleted. But I think the the following text should
not have been deleted:

"Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and many
questions would be better expressed on the list in the months that
follow."

I would probably tune the last part so that it reads"

"Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and
questions can be asked and answered on the list."

3) The Security Considerations say:

"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not affect the security of the
Internet in any way."

I'm not so sure. Try this:

"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the
Internet."

(I thought about drafting some text about how misconduct could damage
security, but I think that rat hole can be avoided in this particular
document.)

4) Appendix A: Reporting transgressions of the guidelines

Maybe just add a hint about the ombudsperson?

"At the time of writing, the IETF is putting in place an anti-harassment policy
and an ombudsperson to handle complaints."

   Brian

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:29:01 -0600

On 11/6/13 18:20 , S Moonesamy wrote:
> for conduct.  In theory someone might be able to take legal action
> against the IETF or the person responsible.  In simple terms the IETF
> guidelines for conduct is to "play nice".
>

In general I agree with keeping the particular issue of harassment out 
of the draft.  However, there are some concepts in the Anti-Harassment 
Policy that may be worthy of including.  I believe the first paragraph 
of the policy is an excellent summary of what the guidelines intend to 
achieve.

    IETF meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists are intended for
    professional collaboration and networking. The IETF strives to
    create and maintain an environment in which people of many different
    backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Those
    who participate in the IETF are expected to behave according to
    professional standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace
    behavior.

I'm not suggesting you simply insert that text, but maybe ensure all of 
the ideas or concepts are embodied within the draft.  In particular I'd 
like to see the concepts of "professional standards" and/or "workplace 
behavior" more directly included.

Additionally, a little shot of the "Golden Rule" wouldn't hurt either, 
its always a good idea to remind people think about how they would want 
to be treated if the roles were reversed.

Finally, in my opinion, part of being "professional" is to apologize 
when from time-to-time we each act in an unprofessional manne, we all 
fail occasionally.  And, regarding Appendix A, a simple polite request 
for an apology is frequently the most professional, appropriate, and 
expeditious coarse of action.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:43:23 -0800

Hi Brian,
>and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate.)

Thanks for pointing this out.  I forgot about the case where 
"collaboration" has a negative connotation.  I'll change the sentence to:

   The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of
   people, ideas, and communication styles.

>questions can be asked and answered on the list."

I'll comment as an individual.  This was a thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html 
The "not intended for the education of individuals" can be read in 
various ways.  I understand that there is a time constraint.  If 
there are five new persons, each taking one minute, at the microphone 
I see that as five new persons feeling comfortable to participate in 
the IETF.  One of the points in the slide at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld016.htm is 
"grow other people".  Is it worthwhile to spend the five minutes of a 
working group session on new participants?  My answer is yes.

At the end of the Technical Plenary there was a woman who came to the 
microphone to make a comment.  I was interested in hearing her 
opinion.  11% of the attendees at this week's meeting are new.  A 
quick look at the microphone line might show whether these attendees 
are causing problems.

>"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the

Thanks, I'll go with the suggested text.

>security, but I think that rat hole can be avoided in this particular

Yes. :-)

>and an ombudsperson to handle complaints."

I'll leave this one open and wait for more feedback.  Please note 
that I have read about the appeals.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:13:50 +0100

Hi Moonesamy,

IMHO, that this document should be about guiding people that have
feelings not about people of no feelings. The respect intention is
very important but that needs remembering equality and fairness.
Humans forget alot, so the document reminds us as guiding our
inetraction/behavior.

I am still [DISCUSS] position, so reviewer comments to the author's
reply available below,

> respect and courtesy to their colleagues.

Ok, that is good but what is the conduct? I think you mean personal
conduct, so why not make the title: IETF Guidelines for Personal
Conduct. Please adjust or reply,

>     discussion can form an opinion [SQPA]."

ok
> There is some text about that in Appendix B of the draft.

ok
> I see that you noticed that.  I'll suggest changing the title of Section 2

Personal Conduct

> The draft does not provide guidance on how to build good discussions

I know that, but it will miss the aim of the document if it does not
make some guide principles to personal conduct. The conduct is about
inter-action which is discussions and consensus, so the actions are
inputs/documents/posts/consensus-sounds. So why you think the draft
SHOULD not provide guides to conduct that is aiming for better
interactions.
> I don't know how to cover remote discussions in the draft.

The draft SHOULD not discriminate between f2f or remote inputs and
actions, because the draft is about personal conduct in IETF. IETF is
mostly remotely interactions.

> The draft is about people.  There are BCPs which discuss about the bodies.

Therefore, put in the title *personal conduct*. I support that the
draft focuses about people's interactions only not machines/bodies
interactions. That is why I mentioned before the important principle
of *intention* (bodies have no intentions, because it can be a machine
or system, systems have decisions and actions like us but no feelings
or intentions) that the draft needs to introduce openly without
avoiding.

> In my opinion the above is already covered in RFC 2026.

I don't agree, the RFC2026 his more credit to management body or
manager to control work flow very little for personal conflicts
(RFC2026 does not solve many feelings issues), this RFC2026 is like a
systematic practice not sensitive enough for best personal conduct
practices. I mean fair and equal in many race, cultural and knowledge
levels. Why you don't want to repeat the word if necessary even if it
was said in all RFCs? IMHO, the document needs to represent the equal
and fair in ALL personal inter-actions.

> everyone.  There is an expectation that everyone will contribute in

What about feeling decisions, as being friendly, or being ugly in
interaction, or making behavior of ignoring, or example: saying my job
is not to educate you, etc. Saying that is a decision and action, I
think you should think about its relation to personal conduct.

> I haven't seen any other feedback mentioning that the draft is

It is understandable but not enough. It is like repeating what
government organisations are writting in their principles of conduct.
I am from Africa, and I reviewed the document, do you think my review
is not important, only America reviewers you accept. I may not
understood your point,

> the other person engaged in the coversation.

Every one is making huge effort to add value and understand, which we
all SHOULD remember, without wrong intentions. The above context is
not important, but what is important is the inter-action, intention,
decisions, actions. No one in IETF should say/post to another I am not
here to educate you, specially when it is an AD or a WG chair. If one
person in IETF does not understand that will mean many in the
community did not understand because we are all equal, otherwise we
become non volunteers.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 03:43:16 -0800

Hi David,
At 16:29 07-11-2013, David Farmer wrote:
>In general I agree with keeping the particular issue of harassment 
>out of the draft.  However, there are some concepts in the 
>Anti-Harassment Policy that may be worthy of including.  I believe 
>the first paragraph of the policy is an excellent summary of what 
>the guidelines intend to achieve.
>
>I'm not suggesting you simply insert that text, but maybe ensure all 
>of the ideas or concepts are embodied within the draft.  In 
>particular I'd like to see the concepts of "professional standards" 
>and/or "workplace behavior" more directly included.

I'll list some words from the text:

   - dignity

   - decency

   - respect

There is the following text in the draft:

   "Regardless of these individual differences, participants treat
    their colleagues with respect as persons ..."

There isn't any mention of the word "dignity" or "decency".  These 
two words usually appear in a code of ethics.  I would argue that 
"professional standards" and "workplace behavior" are influenced by 
social norms.  As an example, a speaker disclosed his affiliations in 
his opening remarks at the Technical Plenary.  The degree to which 
that is done varies.  People generally do not do that in a workplace 
as everyone works for the same company.  I am listed as the document 
editor of the draft.  It must have crossed people's minds whether I 
am doing it to get a vanity RFC.   It is unlikely that the average 
IETF participant would ask that question.

In some cultures it may be frowned upon if a person is 
confrontational.  Being confrontational may be considered as 
acceptable behavior in other cultures.

Let's say I add the word "professional" to the draft.  Someone will 
ask: what is the meaning of the word?  Is the person being 
difficult?  I don't think so.  What seems obvious to a person may not 
be that obvious to another person.  In essence, people would like to 
know what is acceptable or what is not acceptable.

>Additionally, a little shot of the "Golden Rule" wouldn't hurt 
>either, its always a good idea to remind people think about how they 
>would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.

There is the following sentence in the draft:

   "Seeing from another's point of view is often revealing even when it
    fails to be compelling."

The preceding sentence could be changed to:

   Regardless of these individual differences, participants treat their
   colleagues with respect as persons especially when it is difficult to
   agree with them; treat other participants as you would like to be treated.

and the "Seeing from ..." sentence be removed.

>when from time-to-time we each act in an unprofessional manne, we 
>all fail occasionally.  And, regarding Appendix A, a simple polite 
>request for an apology is frequently the most professional, 
>appropriate, and expeditious coarse of action.

A person might have sent a hasty message or maybe the message was 
poorly worded.  Mistakes do happen.  I prefer not to explain that a 
meaningful apology might help to resolve the problem.  My reading of 
the word "meaningful" is that the person means what he or she says.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:58:55 +1300

Trimming to just one point:

On 08/11/2013 08:43, S Moonesamy wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html The
> "not intended for the education of individuals" can be read in various
> ways.  I understand that there is a time constraint.  If there are five
> new persons, each taking one minute, at the microphone I see that as
> five new persons feeling comfortable to participate in the IETF.  One of
> the points in the slide at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld016.htm is "grow
> other people".  Is it worthwhile to spend the five minutes of a working
> group session on new participants?  My answer is yes.

Fair enough. But people do need to respect the shortage of time. How about
"Working Group meetings run on a very limited time schedule,
and sometimes participants have to limit their questions.
The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and
questions can be asked and answered on the list."

   Brian

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:31:35 -0800

>> I do not think it is a call for the shepherd to decide to add it or not,
+1.

>
> The document shepherd is there to see that the issues are addressed.  What
> I meant was that if I do not address an issue the document shepherd could,
> for example, tell me "you forgot to address X", or "there is agreement to
> add text about Y and you did not do it".

The document shepherd has the same responsibility as the editor, which is
to confirm that the document reflects consensus of the community on all
points (plus the IESG followup stuff).  Authority (such as it is) to decide
what's in and what's out lies with the community.  The worst that could
happen is that the author and shepherd disagree about what has consensus,
and at maximum the shepherd could note the discrepancy in the document's
writeup and let the IESG determine consensus on the disputed point.

Who is the shepherd for this one?  The tracker shows none assigned.

Anyway, I agree that the document ought to mention, at least in an
appendix, the harassment and ombudsperson points.  It's not a normative
document so there are no concerns about the IETF being bound to some
particular structure in that area.

I wonder, too, if this topic should be reflected in the Tao, which I
believe is now a Wiki.

-MSK

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:22:09 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
>Humans forget alot, so the document reminds us as guiding our

I don't think that it is up to the draft to remind people not to be 
insensitive.  It is unlikely that people who are insensitive will 
change because of what is written in a document.

>Conduct. Please adjust or reply,

I did a quick search on part of the existing title.  I did not find 
any occurrences of the word "personal".  Please note that I am 
responding to why the title is what it is and not why the title is 
not something else.

>Personal Conduct

Please refer to my previous comment.

>SHOULD not provide guides to conduct that is aiming for better

The definition of "conduct" is "the manner in which a person 
behaves".  Discussions and consensus are covered by the relevant 
process documents.  The draft is not about how to interact or discuss 
to reach consensus.

>mostly remotely interactions.

I did not find any text in the draft which might encourage discrimination.

>or intentions) that the draft needs to introduce openly without

Please see my comment near the beginning of this message about 
"personal conduct".

>and fair in ALL personal inter-actions.

I took a quick look at RFC 2026 before typing this.  I found several 
occurrences of the word "fair" in the document.  I don't see a need 
to repeat what is already stated in another BCP.

>think you should think about its relation to personal conduct.

There isn't any way for, for example, you to know that I am being 
friendly.  I can write a nicely worded message but that does not mean 
that I am being friendly.  It is up to the reader to determine 
whether this message contains platitudes, i.e. trite or banal remarks 
or statements, especially expressed as if it were original or significant.

If a person sends me the following reply: "my job is not to educate 
you", I would not ask the person to help me.

>is not important, only America reviewers you accept. I may not

It would be politically inappropriate for me to say that your review 
is not important.  I could say that your review is very important; it 
would be a meaningless statement in my opinion.  The point is to get 
different readers to assess whether the draft is easy to understand.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:26:34 -0800

Hi Murray,
At 08:31 08-11-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>The document shepherd has the same responsibility as the editor, 
>which is to confirm that the document reflects consensus of the 
>community on all points (plus the IESG followup stuff).  Authority 
>(such as it is) to decide what's in and what's out lies with the
>  community.  The worst that could happen is that the author and 
> shepherd disagree about what has consensus, and at maximum the 
> shepherd could note the discrepancy in the document's writeup and 
> let the IESG determine consensus on the disputed point.

The document editor documents the points which has gained 
agreement.  If there is disagreement or it is not clear what has 
gained agreement the document shepherd can provide advice.  It's 
unlikely that I would disagree with the document shepherd.  The 
sponsoring Area Director can step in to provide guidance.  The IESG 
gets to make the determination of consensus.

>Who is the shepherd for this one?  The tracker shows none assigned.

Ines Robles is the document shepherd.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:43:59 +0000

SM,

I'm in favour of the publication of this draft, as-is, with or without the
changes discussed on this list.

Small formatting glitch on points 3 and 4 of §2 - the intentation seems
awry.

One small note is that it took me a while to figure out the SQPA reference
- I'd assumed that indented paragraph was a direct quote from the talk or
the slides, whereas it's actually the "Simple Question; Polite Answer"
concept you're referring to. It might be useful to expand that acronym.

Dave.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:04:17 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 09:43 08-11-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
>Small formatting glitch on points 3 and 4 of §2 - the intentation seems awry.

Thanks, I need to fix that.

>One small note is that it took me a while to 
>figure out the SQPA reference - I'd assumed that 
>indented paragraph was a direct quote from the 
>talk or the slides, whereas it's actually the 
>"Simple Question; Polite Answer" concept you're 
>referring to. It might be useful to expand that acronym.

   We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument rather than through
   intimidation or personal attack.  Try to provide data and facts for
   your standpoints so the rest of the participants who are sitting on the
   sidelines watching the discussion can form an opinion.  The discussion
   is easier when the response to a simple question is a polite answer [SQPA].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:03:54 -0800

Hi Brian,
>questions can be asked and answered on the list."

How about:

    IETF participants read the relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and
    email archives beforehand, in order to familiarize themselves
    with the technology under discussion.  Working Group sessions
    run on a very limited time schedule, and sometimes participants
    have to limit their questions.  The work of the group will
    continue on the mailing list, and questions can be asked and
    answered on the mailing list.  It can be a challenge when
    attending a new working group without knowing the history of
    longstanding Working Group debates.  Information about a working
    group including its charter and milestones is available on the
    IETF Tools web site [TOOLS] or from the working group chair.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:26:35 +0100

I recommend addition to the guide points, I think 4 points are not enough.
I disagree with the author in the approach of providing some
incomplete guides. I will need some time to post my final post with new
points suggested, but before December.

AB

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:33:14 +1300

That works for me.

Thanks
   Brian

On 09/11/2013 07:03, S Moonesamy wrote:
> .

---

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:27:11 -0200

Hi Murray,

Thanks for ur comments,

I am the doc. shepherd for this draft. I 'm tracking all the comments
during this last call, and I am going to make sure that the document
reflects consensus of the community on all points.

Kind Regards,

Ines Robles.

2013/11/8 Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>

>> The document shepherd is there to see that the issues are addressed.
>>  What I meant was that if I do not address an issue the document shepherd
>> could, for example, tell me "you forgot to address X", or "there is
>> agreement to add text about Y and you did not do it".
>
>