Subject: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05 becoming a Best Current Practice

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:45:13 -0500

I have a few comments on draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05.  I do not know if any of the ADs think these concerns are worth delaying the document, but in my view my third and fourth comments need to be fixed before the document can become a Best Current Practice.

1)  As part of the first guideline, RFC 3184 includes these words:

> 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.

I think that this was good advice, and it is missing from the current document.

2) As part of the second guideline, RFC 3184 includes these words:

> Or, said in a somewhat more IETF-like way:
> 
>             "Reduce the heat and increase the light"

I like the things that are added in 3184bis, but I'd like to see this included at the end of the current text.

3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is working toward a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, and I consider this a major problem with the new text.

4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF participants follow the IPR rules in BCP 9.  That is lost in the revised text.  Perhaps it belongs in a separate guideline, but it should be recovered.

5) As part of the fourth guideline, readers are pointed to [TOOLS] for WG charters.  It would be better to point them to the official charter pages: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/

Russ

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:01:54 -0600

> I think that this was good advice, and it is missing from the current document.

I think the current text is mostly equivalent, expect the two 
suggestions to speak slowly and limit the use of slang got dropped.

I think it would not hurt to add those suggestions back in, I recommend 
something like the following.

       ... All participants, particularly those with English as a first
       language, attempt to accommodate the needs of other participants
       by communicating clearly, including speaking slowly and limiting
       the use of slang. ...

> I like the things that are added in 3184bis, but I'd like to see this included at the end of the current text.

I'm not completely oppose to adding that back in, but I'm not sure what 
value it adds.  Further, I'm a little concerned it could confuse some 
people, and I'm not sure it doesn't violate #1 above, seems like slang 
to me or at least its a metaphor that not everyone will be familiar with.

> 3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is working toward a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, and I consider this a major problem with the new text.

I feel the current text captures that idea in the following;

     IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
     best solution for the whole Internet...

> 4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF participants follow the IPR rules in BCP 9.  That is lost in the revised text.  Perhaps it belongs in a separate guideline, but it should…

I agree with the author, and I don't think it belongs in the guidelines 
for conduct themselves.  It dilutes the message regarding personal 
conduct in my opinion.  If its really necessary, I'd suggest a new 
section, or maybe even better yet another Appendix, something like the 
following;

     X. Other Issues

     While not directly related to conduct there are other important
     issues for IETF participants to remember.

     1. No Confidentially

     There must be NO assumption of any confidentiality obligation with
     respect to discussions at work group meetings or on mailing lists.
     Therefore, please DO NOT discuss matters that are subject to any
     confidentiality obligations.

     2. Intellectual Property Rights

     ...

     3. General Information

     Other useful information about the IETF and working group meetings,
     such as newcomer training, dress code, etc..., can be found in
     "the Tao of the IETF" [TAO]

     [TAO] <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>

> 5) As part of the fourth guideline, readers are pointed to [TOOLS] for WG charters.  It would be better to point them to the official charter pages: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/

Seems reasonable.

-- 
================================================
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: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:18:07 -0800

Hi Russ, David,
At 09:45 30-12-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
>I have a few comments on draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05.  I 
>do not know if any of the ADs think these concerns are worth 
>delaying the document, but in my view my third and fourth comments 
>need to be fixed before the document can become a Best Current Practice.

Thanks for reviewing the draft.  I'll comment below.

> > 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 text in the draft is as follows:

  "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."

IETF attendees spend three weeks a year in meetings where they talk 
to each other.  However, that is not the only time when IETF 
discussions occur.  There are the mailing list discussions which 
occur throughout the year.  The guidance includes all that by saying 
"everyone makes a sincere effort to understand each other".  I can 
speak slowly and avoid slang but that does not mean that I am making 
an effort to understand the other person.  The message, for example, 
lists concerns about the draft.  It is up to me to make an effort to 
understand those concerns.  I could start a conversation with the 
other person if I do not understand something and politely ask the 
other person to clarify something he or she said or wrote.

There is a discussion which led to the text change at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00284.html

>I like the things that are added in 3184bis, but I'd like to see 
>this included at the end of the current text.

I posted a message about that text (see thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00204.html 
) in which I mentioned that the "remove the heat ..." was removed as 
it may not make sense to non-English speakers.  An English speaker 
who is not familiar with the IETF-like way might not understand the 
meaning of that sentence.  In my opinion it is better to keep the 
guideline as clear and simple as possible.

>3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is 
>working toward a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, 
>and I consider this a major problem with the new text.

There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text 
with that RFC 3935.  I made the change in response to that 
comment.  I posted a message to the IETF mailing list about the 
change (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84990.html ).  I 
took the comment posted by Dave Crocker into consideration (re. 
consensus) in trying to figure out the text change to suggest.

There is already text in the draft which mentions that:

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

How is the IETF working towards a global Internet?  I would say that 
it is by devising solutions which meet the needs of diverse 
environments; it would be difficult to meet those needs if the IETF 
is not open to competent input from any source.

>4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF 
>participants follow the IPR rules in BCP 9.  That is lost in the 
>revised text.  Perhaps it belongs in a separate guideline, but it 
>should be recovered.

According to the "Note Well" ( 
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) the IETF's IPR Policy is 
set forth in BCP 79.  In my opinion it is better to keep the 
guidelines of conduct separate from legal rules.  Jari Arkko 
mentioned that he was okay with that (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html 
).  An IETF participant will have to read BCP 79 anyway.

>5) As part of the fourth guideline, readers are pointed to [TOOLS] 
>for WG charters.  It would be better to point them to the official 
>charter pages: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/

The text change was suggested in the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html 
If I recall correctly the easier reference was chosen instead of the 
official one.  The reason was so that newcomers can easily find 
information for them to overcome the challenge of participating in 
IETF working group discussions.

At 14:01 30-12-2013, David Farmer wrote:
>I think it would not hurt to add those suggestions back in, I 
>recommend something like the following.
>
>

I agree that it would not hurt to add those suggestions.  That part 
of the draft is phrased so that it is applicable to the communication 
medium where the IETF discussion is being held.  I'll highlight a 
comment from Eduardo A. Suarez:

   "What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a mailing
    list someone's opinion is censored because misspell their ideas 
or opinions."

and a comment from Solarus ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85043.html ):

   "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."

I would describe the problem as being about understanding each other 
instead of a one-way effort such as speaking slowly.

>I'm not completely oppose to adding that back in, but I'm not sure 
>what value it adds.  Further, I'm a little concerned it could 
>confuse some people, and I'm not sure it doesn't violate #1 above, 
>seems like slang to me or at least its a metaphor that not everyone 
>will be familiar with.

I already commented about this (see above).  I once tried to explain 
that sentence and what struck me was that I was getting into some 
convoluted explanation about the metaphor when I could have got the 
point across with a simple explanation.

>     best solution for the whole Internet...

It's interesting to note that you and I chose different parts of the 
text as a response.  Please note that my response should not be 
considered as the authoritative one.

>I agree with the author, and I don't think it belongs in the 
>guidelines for conduct themselves.  It dilutes the message regarding 
>personal conduct in my opinion.  If its really necessary, I'd 
>suggest a new section, or maybe even better yet another Appendix, 
>something like the following;
>
>     X. Other Issues
>

There are a lot of things which are worthwhile to mention.  By 
mentioning every piece of good advice the draft will end up diluting 
the message.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:24:13 -0600

> mentioning every piece of good advice the draft will end up diluting the
> message.

+1

That is why I qualified my suggestion with "if its really necessary", 
and if I wasn't clear, I'm not convinced its necessary.

However, if IPR must be mentioned, I don't think it should be mentioned 
alone, that would over emphasize IPR.  That is the only reason I added a 
couple other pieces of good advice.  I'd prefer none of it.

Thanks

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:57:26 -0500

Hi,

> guideline as clear and simple as possible.

I'm really torn about that decision.  Let me try to state why and
leave you to do as you wish.

On the one hand, it is indisputably important to be plain and clear in
communication, particularly if one wishes to be understood by a very
wide audience.

On the other hand, part of the goal of the document, as I understand
it, is to bridge some of the gaps between new participants to the IETF
and longer-time participants.  (If we were a stable and mostly
homogeneous culture, we wouldn't need to write down our norms;
they'd simply be shared values.)  Part of that bridge needs to be
constructed, I think, with illustration as well as statement.

Many people around here seem to like analogies and metaphors.  That
is, perhaps, partly because of the expressive power they offer, partly
because the structure of language (maybe all language, if we believe
Lakoff and Johnson), and partly because a lot of the time we are
reasoning about stuff that isn't exactly either invented or understood
yet.  As we grope towards shared understanding and better analysis of
what we're trying to specify, the chances are pretty good that we will
end up using analogies and metaphors to find our way.

The analogy in RFC 3184 is, I think, especially apt, both because of
the play on "heated dispute" and "illuminating conversation" and
because it turns on a common idiomatic English expression.  I'm aware
of how great a barrier idiom can be -- after years out of practice, it
once again takes me a great deal of effort to understand a Québecois
conversation.  But that is part of the expressive power of language
(as opposed to, say, code).  I'm not sure that we're going to make
everything clearer by dispensing with idiom and metaphor in our work.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:34:58 -0800

Hi Andrew,
At 18:57 30-12-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>once again takes me a great deal of effort to understand a Quebecois

I agree that the metaphors are part of the expressive power of 
language and I agree with what is written above.

The origin of the phrase is from Mike O'Dell and it was written as follows:

   "Increase the light and reduce the heat."

Mike O'Dell changed that to:

   "Reduce the heat and increase the light."

I did a quick search of the phrase as used in the IETF.  There were 
241 results.  11 of those results were from messages posted to IETF 
mailing lists.  Four persons commented about that text (I am ignoring 
my comments).  My reading of the opinions expressed is that they 
leaned towards having that text in the document.

I'll leave this open until 7 January, 2014 so that other persons have 
the opportunity to express their opinions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:12:36 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:34 AM
<snip>

> the opportunity to express their opinions.

I have not a clue what that expression means; I have never seen it
before anywhere that I can recall (speaking my one and only language,
English).  Is it Quebecois, Canadian, American, IETFian...  ?  I do not
know and cannot imagine it conveying anything to someone who is new to
the IETF and is not a native English speaker!

Tom Petch

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:42:08 +0000

The phrase is not the only barrier to understanding that exchange. To figure everything that was said out, you also need to know who Mike O'Dell ([1]) is, who Lakoff and Johnson are, and what they said about metaphors.

All that is readily available through Google and Wikipedia, but requires a lot of reading. 

I also seem to be falling behind a bit, as Dr. Who references become more common than Star Trek references. Idioms like "home stretch", "batting this out of the ballpark", or "at the 90th minute" might harm understanding, but they're just one kind of disruptive cultural reference.

Yoav

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-odell-code-of-conduct-00

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.p.
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:13 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; S Moonesamy
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05 becoming a Best Current Practice

----- Original Message -----
From: "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:34 AM <snip>

> the opportunity to express their opinions.

I have not a clue what that expression means; I have never seen it before anywhere that I can recall (speaking my one and only language, English).  Is it Quebecois, Canadian, American, IETFian...  ?  I do not know and cannot imagine it conveying anything to someone who is new to the IETF and is not a native English speaker!

Tom Petch

> S. Moonesamy

Email secured by Check Point

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:29:14 -0500

On Dec 31, 2013, at 4:12 AM, t.p. <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Is it Quebecois, Canadian, American, IETFian...  ?  I do not

It's jargon.   I suspect at this point most native english speakers who read IETF documents would understand what it means, but I see no reason to think that non-native speakers would, and I assumed it was removed for that reason.   I think it's fine to leave it out, but would be curious to hear from some non-native speakers as to what they think about it.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:42:31 -0500

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:42:08AM +0000, Yoav Nir wrote:

> To figure everything that was said out
[…]
> requires a lot of reading.

It would be disingenuous to pretend I didn't write as I did on
purpose.  I was trying to illustrate as well as argue, because there's
a benefit to shorter communication over longer: we all get a lot of
mail, and really long mails consume time.  If we give up the
expressive power of casual references, idiom, metaphor, and analogy
and instead explain everything at length, our communications are going
to take a _lot_ more time.  It's just way faster to be able to go to
the mic (or send a mail) and say, "This is more heat than light.  I
still don't get it," than to have to say, "I appreciate that there are
strong positions on both sides and that feelings are running very high
about this issue.  People have expressed themselves in very strong
terms, but I still do not fully comprehend the details of the two
positions, and I can't really tell what the difference is.  Would
someone please explain in detail what separates the different
positions?"  I'm not even sure the second of those formulations is
clearer, though I suspect it's the one considered a polite
intervention in a certain kind of meeting.

Also, is it really the case that one needs to figure out everything
that was said?  Who Mike O'Dell is, or what Lakoff and Johnson said,
and so on, is all maybe interesting embroidery, and it might be useful
in evaluating subtleties.  But I think the main propositional
conclusion of my earlier message ("Maybe we should sometimes keep some
analogy and metaphor," will do, I suppose) is still plain without all
the additional references.  Perhaps that's all I should have written,
but I think that would have been a poor argument.  Only if you're at
all open to the possibility of the argument in the first place do you
need to start working on it.

Anyway, I still don't feel super strongly about this issue.  But it's
clearly an important one for our culture, so I suppose we'll have to
face it again.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:49:45 -0500

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:29:14AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:

> It's jargon.

I think I disagree.  I think it's idiom.  "MPLS" is maybe jargon.
"Bit-bucket" is certainly jargon.  "More heat than light" is not.

It might be that the expression is stale, too.  I have long assumed
that the basic analogy is with incandescent light bulbs or other light
sources that produced both heat and light.  One wanted more light than
heat.  (It'd be stupid to complain of a heater, "It's more heat than
light.")  In this age of CFLs, maybe the expression is finished.  (A
principle telling against including the expression, indeed, is to
avoid the use of clichés.)

Anyway, I've used up my allocation of bits for this month.  I'll shut
up now.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:35:48 -0500

> "Bit-bucket" is certainly jargon.  "More heat than light" is not.

I mean as in "from the jargon file" not "technical jargon."   It is a turn of phrase that is common to people who grew up on usenet.

I don't think saying "this argument contains more heat than light" is faster than saying "I haven't yet seen the technical point you are making—could you please try to state it clearly?"  The advantage of the second phrase is that it says what you want to have happen next; the first phrase simply says that what was said previously was bad, in a way that gives the person you are criticizing no real guidance as to what to do differently, other than "tone it down."  I guess that isn't a bad thing, but isn't really the point.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:48:26 -0500

SM:

As I said in my original posting, I am most concerned about my 3rd and 4th comments.  I'll respond to them.

> There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text with that RFC 3935.  I made the change in response to that comment.  I posted a message to the IETF mailing list about the change (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84990.html ).  I took the comment posted by Dave Crocker into consideration (re. consensus) in trying to figure out the text change to suggest.
> 
> How is the IETF working towards a global Internet?  I would say that it is by devising solutions which meet the needs of diverse environments; it would be difficult to meet those needs if the IETF is not open to competent input from any source.

The IETF develops open standards for one global Internet, providing maximum interoperability and scalability, and avoiding specialized protocols in different places.

> According to the "Note Well" ( http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) the IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79.  In my opinion it is better to keep the guidelines of conduct separate from legal rules.  Jari Arkko mentioned that he was okay with that (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html ).  An IETF participant will have to read BCP 79 anyway.

BCP 79 is the proper reference.

Following the IPR rules is an obligation for all IETF participants.  It was in RFC 3184, and I think we need to keep in this document.

Russ

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Dec 2013 16:21:10 -0000

> the IETF and is not a native English speaker!

 When the blood burns, how prodigal the soul 
 Lends the tongue vows. These blazes, daughter, 
 Giving more light than heat, extinct in both, 

  - Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3

Culturally yours,
John

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:23:40 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoav Nir" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.p." <[email-masked]>; "Andrew Sullivan"
<[email-masked]>; "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:42 AM

The phrase is not the only barrier to understanding that exchange. To
figure everything that was said out, you also need to know who Mike
O'Dell ([1]) is, who Lakoff and Johnson are, and what they said about
metaphors.

All that is readily available through Google and Wikipedia, but requires
a lot of reading.

I also seem to be falling behind a bit, as Dr. Who references become
more common than Star Trek references. Idioms like "home stretch",
"batting this out of the ballpark", or "at the 90th minute" might harm
understanding, but they're just one kind of disruptive cultural
reference.

<tp>

Funny that you should say that.  I did search Wikipedia after reading
Andrew Sullivan's post and got

"More Heat Than Light" is the second single by The Veils released on 18
November 2002. The song was written by Finn and his father Barry
Andrews, with musician Carl Marsch."

Perhaps we are too far ahead of the curve in this instance!

Tom Petch

Yoav

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.p.
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:13 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; S Moonesamy
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05
becoming a Best Current Practice

----- Original Message -----
From: "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:34 AM <snip>

Tom Petch

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:21:54 -0800

On 12/31/13, 5:29 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Is it Quebecois, Canadian, American, IETFian...  ?  I do not know
>> and cannot imagine it conveying anything to someone who is new to 

"More heat than light" is not jargon, it is not domain specific or
confined in usage to the ietf, it is in fact an idiom that has been in
use for centuries.

That doesn't mean it's clear in this case or contextually appropiate, or
couldn't be said better. We not longer in general illiuminate with fire
so the context in which it would be used to describe human behavior is
not close at hand.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:02:54 -0000

> >> 3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is working
toward
> >> a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, and I consider this a
major
> >>problem with the new text.
> >
> > There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text with that
> > RFC 3935.  I made the change in response to that comment. 

I believe that comment was mine.
I pointed out that 3184 predated the mission statement in 3935 and that it would
be "better" (IMHO) to align this revision with the consensus mission statement
than to define the purpose of the IETF as an aside in this document.

I stand by that.

Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 02:49:29 +0100

On 12/31/13, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It's jargon.   I suspect at this point most native english speakers who read
> IETF documents would understand what it means, but I see no reason to think
> that non-native speakers would, and I assumed it was removed for that
> reason.   I think it's fine to leave it out, but would be curious to hear
> from some non-native speakers as to what they think about it.

I am not native speaker, and still not attended meetings (but was
remote), but that statement of reduce heat and having light is very
useful and understandable for me. I hope not to remove it. Usually
heat refers to argue without evidence and light refers to knowledge
and evidence. However, using them is better because we want to give
freedom to people to discuss even if they don't have clear evidence
but not to get heated.

AB