Subject: Suggested changes to draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:38:45 -0800

Hello,

There was a discussion with the (sponsoring) Area Director and 
document shepherd about the Introduction section of 
draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04 [1].  The following change is 
suggested:

     The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of
     people, ideas, and communication styles.  The IETF strives, through
     the guidelines for conduct, to create and maintain an environment
     in which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
     People who participate in the IETF are expected to behave in a
     professional manner as we work together to develop interoperable
     technologies for the Internet.  All IETF participants aim to abide by
     these guidelines as we build consensus in person and through email
     discussions.  If conflicts arise they are resolved according to the
     procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:54:00 -0800

On 12/15/2013 12:38 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was a discussion with the (sponsoring) Area Director and document
> shepherd about the Introduction section of

Nice.

Small suggestion is to add (rough), so that a casual reader won't miss 
that our version of consensus does not mean unanimity.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:04:04 -0200

It looks good to me.

Regards,
as

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:01:42 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 12:54 15-12-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Small suggestion is to add (rough), so that a casual reader won't 
>miss that our version of consensus does not mean unanimity.

Thanks for the feedback (and to Arturo too).  I'll get back to this 
in a day or two as  there are some other suggested changes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:48:20 -0600

On 12/15/13, 16:01 , S Moonesamy wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback (and to Arturo too).  I'll get back to this in a
> day or two as  there are some other suggested changes.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

Thank you, this incorporates the concepts I was looking for.

I like Dave's suggestion.  Another small suggestion, the paragraph uses 
both "person" and "participant".  I wonder if it wouldn't be a little 
cleaner to use only one or the other.

Even without any additional changes, it looks much better now.

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: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:09:11 -0800

Hello,

Here is the list of suggested changes to 
draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04:

The following paragraph could be added to the Abstract:

    This document provides an updated version of the guidelines for conduct
    originally published in RFC 3184.

At the end of the Introduction section:

   This document obsoletes RFC 3184 [RFC3184] and reclassifies it as Historic.

Section 2, Point 3 could be as follows:

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

       The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough consensus
       and individual participation, and needs to be open to competent input
       from any source.  We understand that "scaling is the ultimate problem"
       and that many ideas quite workable in the small fail this crucial test.

       IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
       best solution for the whole Internet, not just the best solution
       for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user.  While we
       all have ideas that may stand improvement from time to time, no
       one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make
       a standard technically inferior.

There is a change to the first sentence in the second paragraph (in 
Point 3).  I'll comment on Dave Crocker's suggestion (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84978.html 
).  The "as we build consensus in person and through email 
discussions" leaves it to the reader to think about building 
consensus.  Please note that I agree with what Dave wrote about 
"unanimity".  The proposed text mentions that the IETF puts emphasis 
on "rough consensus".

In Section 2, Point 4:

   IETF participants read the relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and
   email archives 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 to participate in a
   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.

I removed "beforehand" and changed "when attending" to "to 
participate" to cover any IETF activity.

In Appendix C:

    o  The text about "think globally" was removed as the meaning was
       not clear.

    o  Added text about the IETF striving to create an environment in
       which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect.

    o  The text about the goal of the IETF was replaced with text about
       what the IETF puts its emphasis on.

>Thank you, this incorporates the concepts I was looking for.

I'll add an acknowledgement.

>I like Dave's suggestion.  Another small suggestion, the paragraph 
>uses both "person" and "participant".  I wonder if it wouldn't be a 
>little cleaner to use only one or the other.

Please see my above comment about the suggestion.

     The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of
     people, ideas, and communication styles.  The IETF strives, through
     the guidelines for conduct, to create and maintain an environment
     in which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
     People who participate in the IETF are expected to behave in a
     professional manner as we work together to develop interoperable
     technologies for the Internet.  We aim to abide by these guidelines as
     we build consensus in person and through email discussions.  If
     conflicts arise they are resolved according to the  procedures outlined
     in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].

I replaced "All IETF participants" with "We".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:03:54 -0600

I like all the proposed changes, a few other comments below.

>    This document obsoletes RFC 3184 [RFC3184] and reclassifies it as

This is probably only a meta-data issue handled by the RFC-Editor, but 
as this obsoletes RFC 3184, which is also BCP 57, this document becomes 
BCP 57, which I believe is the intended result.  I mostly just want to 
confirm this, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the text itself.

...
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84978.html ).  The
> "as we build consensus in person and through email discussions" leaves
> it to the reader to think about building consensus.  Please note that I
> agree with what Dave wrote about "unanimity".  The proposed text
> mentions that the IETF puts emphasis on "rough consensus".

I like the way you are handling Dave Crocker's "unanimity" suggestion, 
and how you emphases the need to build consensus, while still making it 
clear we don't require unanimity.

...
> I replaced "All IETF participants" with "We".

Thank you, I think that makes it read a little cleaner.  I also like how 
this puts a little more emphasis on the fact that "we AIM to abide by 
these guidelines", subtly acknowledging the imperfections of us all.

> S. Moonesamy

Thanks

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:10:50 -0800

Hi David,
At 23:03 15-12-2013, David Farmer wrote:
>This is probably only a meta-data issue handled by the RFC-Editor, 
>but as this obsoletes RFC 3184, which is also BCP 57, this document 
>becomes BCP 57, which I believe is the intended result.  I mostly 
>just want to confirm this, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in 
>the text itself.

The document will become BCP 54 if it is published.  The BCP part is 
about meta-data.  It is handled by the RFC Editor and it does not 
have to mentioned in the document.

>Thank you, I think that makes it read a little cleaner.  I also like 
>how this puts a little more emphasis on the fact that "we AIM to 
>abide by these guidelines", subtly acknowledging the imperfections of us all.

Yes.  Mistakes can happen.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy