Subject: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04.txt

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:38:28 +0100

Hello,

The new revision of the draft addresses the comments made during the Last
Call.

There were some comments about mentioning the anti-harassment policy in
this draft.  I discussed about the matter with the Area Director.  It is
suggested not to mention the policy in this draft.  Please note that during
the IETF 88 plenary it was mentioned that the next step would be to
consider a BCP-level policy for the anti-harassment policy (Slide 14 at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-iesg-opsplenary-2.pdf ).

Please any comments are very welcome,

Thanks and Regards,

Ines Robles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

    Title           : IETF Guidelines for Conduct
    Author(s)       : S. Moonesamy
    Filename        : draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04.txt
    Pages           : 5
    Date            : 2013-12-02

Abstract:
  This document 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 IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:35:03 +0100

thanks Ines, but I think the document did not address all of my comments,

AB

---

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:12:09 -0200

*Hi Abdussalam,Thanks,I read the threads at:On
11/07:http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83888.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83888.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83913.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83913.html>
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83913.html>On
11/08:http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84002.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84002.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84010.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84010.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84018.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84018.html> This last
one, covers these points: (a) recommend addition to the guide points, I
think 4 points are not enough.  (b) disagree with the author in the
approach of providing some incomplete guides.Unfortunately it is not clear
what the concerns are.  It will help me if you could provide more
information.Thanks in advance,Kind Regards,Ines.*

2013/12/4 Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:33:16 +0200

Thanks, Ines. 

Just to add one thing to what Ines said. We've considered the option of putting the anti-harassment policy here as well, but at the moment my feeling is that we need to have further experience with it and even if my goal is to make the anti-harassment policy also a BCP, it may change more rapidly than what the material in this draft. So my proposal is to leave it for a separate document.

Jari

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:04:50 -0500

Hi,

I am not advocating (or was) to add the anti-harassment policy here
(in fact I agree that it should not be here). I was advocating to add
some text that says that sexual, racial or other types of harassment
are not welcome in the IETF. So far the code has 4 mayor bullet
points:

1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues
      at all times.

2. IETF participants have impersonal discussions.

3. IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
      needs of diverse technical and operational environments.

4. Individuals are prepared to contribute to the ongoing work of the
      group.

IMHO the issue of harassment is not addressed here and it should be.
We do not need the whole policy here, just simple text. It may even
possible to link the the BCP on the anti-harassment policy. It would
create a dependency, but I think it is worth, otherwise the code seems
incomplete to me.

Nevertheless if you think that it is not a good idea, I can live with it.

Regards,
.as

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 07:58:26 +1300

Arturo,

> 1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues

How could harassment (or discrimination) be allowed under this rule?
They are extreme forms of disrespect and discourtesy, I think.

  Brian

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:13:25 -0500

Brian,

That simple text is perfect, however the text that follows is mainly
about being politely because we are from different backgrounds and
speak different languages. My personal opinion is that we need to have
more strong text about harassment.

"IETF participants come from diverse origins and backgrounds; there

      can be different expectations or assumptions.  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.

      English is the de facto language of the IETF.  However, it is not
      the native language of many IETF participants.  All participants,
      particularly those with English as a first language, attempt to
      accommodate the needs of other participants by communicating
      clearly.  When faced with English that is difficult to understand
      IETF participants make a sincere effort to understand each other
      and engage in conversation to clarify what was meant.
"
Regards,
as

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:53:36 +0200

Arturo,

> We do not need the whole policy here, just simple text.

Understood.

> It may even

We will not have a BCP on anti-harassment this year, while this document is otherwise ready (I think). If we add a reference, we can't publish the RFC until the reference is also an RFC.

> Nevertheless if you think that it is not a good idea, I can live with it.

Thanks.

FWIW, I'd have no problem with doing something like what Dave Farber suggested:

> 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.

And obviously I support the ideas above at 110%.

But my larger point was that we'll have to fine-tune the anti-harassment text anyway to make it a BCP, and in accordance with good principles of management and engineering, not tying things together unless you have to makes progress faster.

In other words, I have no strong resistance about doing something abstract/high level along the lines above. I just think it would be faster and more efficient to get this document out of the door, and let IESG and community discuss the anti-harassment text separately.

Jari

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:05:44 -0200

As I said I have no objections. I would like to have more specific
text but I could live with the current version.

And I liked the text that Dave Farmer suggested. It is simple enough
but very clear in how we need to treat other people.

Best regards,
as

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:14:42 +0200

For information: I am taking this draft to IESG discussion in the next telechat (Dec 19th). One of the points of discussion will be the issue of anti-harassment text from Dave vs. treating it separately.

Jari

---

From: Solarus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:12:03 +0100

>       and engage in conversation to clarify what was meant.
As a french reader of the IETF's lists, I strongly approve these words.
It's enough difficult for many people in the world to speak or write in
english when it's not their native langage.
And it's harder when people criticize you for doing mistakes.

Please be kind ;)

-- 
Solarus - [email-masked]
GPG Key- 0x02C29734

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:57:44 -0800

Hello,
>And it's harder when people criticize you for doing mistakes.

This is an individual comment.

The is a message from Brian Trammell which provides some background 
about the text relating to language ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00289.html ).

The guidelines are not only about encouraging French (and other) 
readers to follow the IETF mailing lists; it is also about 
encouraging any reader irrespective of language to provide 
comments.  As mentioned above it is difficult for many people who do 
not usually speak or write in English.  Hopefully, that might be 
understood in future.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy