Subject: [Diversity] IETF Guidelines for Conduct - draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:44:12 -0700

Hello,

I submitted a draft about the IETF Guidelines for Conduct ( 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-00 
).  The draft is a revision of RFC 3184.

During the last IETF plenary there was the following comment:

   "z (asian accent): Diversity was a controversial topic two years
   ago, and I am happy to see that things have somewhat changed, in
   that the leadership is more diverse and there is a diversity
   project in action.  The IETF is about connecting networks, and
   bringing in people from more parts of the world will help achieve
   the IETFs goals."

As an off-topic comment, I do not know what is an "asian 
accent".  I'll get back to the topic.  I think that there has been a 
positive change.  When people new to the IETF are treated unfairly 
people sit back and watch the show.  I guess that people forget how 
difficult it is when a person is new and that person has to grasp how 
a foreign culture works.

There is a Best Common Practices (BCP) about guidelines for conduct 
which was published in October 2001.  If that was indeed a BCP the 
diversity discussions should not have happened.  My guess is that it 
happened because what the IETF says and what the IETF does are two 
different things.  This draft will not change anything if there isn't 
any support from IETF participants.  Comments are welcome.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:00:37 -0300

My first read of the text looks good. I promise to do a deeper read
and send more comments.

    Initially it would be good to add what are the differences with RFC
3184, why it is no longer useful and/or why we need to update it.

Best regards,
as

On 8/17/13 3:44 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-00 ). 
> The draft is a revision of RFC 3184.
>
> As an off-topic comment, I do not know what is an "asian accent". 
> I'll get back to the topic.  I think that there has been a positive
> change.  When people new to the IETF are treated unfairly people sit
> back and watch the show.  I guess that people forget how difficult it
> is when a person is new and that person has to grasp how a foreign
> culture works.
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:19:24 -0300

Hi SM,

+1 about Arturo's suggestion.

Regards,

Julião

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:30:52 -0700

>     My first read of the text looks good. I promise to do a deeper read

Thanks.

>3184, why it is no longer useful and/or why we need to update it.

The following text is from RFC 3184:

    "With that in mind, newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are
     encouraged to observe and absorb whatever material they can, but
     should not interfere with the ongoing process of the group.
     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."

The above text is telling people new to the IETF to be quiet during 
Working Group meetings.  I did not include it in the draft.  I also 
did not include the:

   "We follow the intellectual property guidelines"

as this document is not the place to discuss about intellectual property.

The "Reduce the heat and increase the light" was also removed as it 
may not make sense to non-English speakers.

>+1 about Arturo's suggestion.

Could you try and see whether the text in the draft is easily 
understandable by Portuguese speakers?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:46:30 -0300

Yes, SM,

The draft is easily undestandable to us.

So much so that I support it.

Best regards,

Julião

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:22:36 -0300

It would be good to explain that you are removing text and why.

/as

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:07:15 -0700

>     It would be good to explain that you are removing text and why.

Yes.  I'll add the explanation in an appendix.

If anyone knows the email address of Susan Harris, could you please 
send me that information?

Someone mentioned off-list that the draft discusses about good 
behavior but it does not say anything about how to handle bad 
behavior.  Please feel free to comment about that off-list if you 
prefer.  I'll keep the comments anonymous and I'll post a summary to 
the mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:56:40 +0000

> 3184, why it is no longer useful and/or why we need to update it.

+1

I am looking at the diff, but I would like to understand WHY changes are being made.

Lars

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 03:00:47 +0000

Hi,

On Aug 18, 2013, at 4:30, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The above text is telling people new to the IETF to be quiet during Working Group meetings.  I did not include it in the draft.

I think we want to rephrase rather than erase. Something along the lines of "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.

>  I also did not include the:
> 

But it's a code of conduct, and reminding folks that an important part of this is following hte IPR policy is certainly a good thing.

> The "Reduce the heat and increase the light" was also removed as it may not make sense to non-English speakers.

Remember that you are not only writing this document for non-English speakers. You are writing it for ALL participants. As such, I'd rather see the phrase explained rather than erased.

Lars

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:10:41 +0100

> Remember that you are not only writing this document for non-English
> speakers. You are writing it for ALL participants. As such, I'd
> rather see the phrase explained rather than erased.

I also have a minor concern about this aspect. It is clear that
some non-native English speakers find use of slang makes it harder
to participate. However, its not clear to me whether or not there's
another set of non-native English speakers who find it just fine
the way it is. (It is the IETF, everything about which its possible
to complain has at least two sides to the story:-)

Personally as a native English speaker from Ireland I quite enjoy
the English language oddities of the English, the Americans and all
the other non-native English speakers:-)

So, fwiw, I'd be slow to try to eliminate all slang.

S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:17:26 -0700

Hi Lars,
At 20:00 18-08-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>I think we want to rephrase rather than erase. Something along the 
>lines of "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.

I would prefer if the above is part of the Newcomers tutorial and/or 
the Tao instead of a guideline for conduct.   One of the principles 
of conduct is:

   "IETF participants come from diverse origins and backgrounds and
    are equipped with multiple capabilities and ideals.  Regardless of
    these individual differences, participants treat their colleagues
    with respect as person"

The bad reception does not seem in line with the above.  Your advice 
(see quoted text) is better.  However, that raises the question of 
whether there should also be guidance for non-newcomers so that they 
do not say unpleasant things.

You mentioned that you have seen newcomers raise issues that are 
outside the scope.  The text from the draft is from a RFC which has 
been available for years.  As the issue happened despite that I would 
read it as meaning that that RFC and the draft is/will be ineffective.

>But it's a code of conduct, and reminding folks that an important 
>part of this is following hte IPR policy is certainly a good thing.

Shouldn't that code of conduct be more about attribution instead of 
legal rules?  For example, the text I am using in the draft comes 
from a document written by another person.  It would not be 
appropriate for me to take credit for that text.  If the idea I wrote 
as a proposal originated from someone else it the appropriate course 
of action might be to give credit to that person.

>speakers. You are

Yes [1].

>  writing it for ALL participants. As such, I'd rather see the 
> phrase explained rather than erased.

That would be something like:

   Do not resort to intimidation and personal attacks as they are not reasoned
   arguments.

The IETF-like way sounds like evangelization.   The question I would 
ask is whether the IETF wants to convert people to its ways or 
respect the broad cultural differences.  Is the IETF accommodating 
the needs of all readers by expecting some readers to learn IETF slang?

Harald mentioned the following during the last plenary:

   "Sorry about making your jobs harder.  We are an open community, which is
    one of our core strengths.  Which also means, some members do not share
    the community goals including diversity.  Which means that our leadership,
    wg chairs, IESG and IAB, need to take action when needed to stem actions
    that would lead to a reduction in diversity.  I'm a bit worried about the
    assertion that if we were a bit nicer, it would go away; there will be
    occasions where we need to be a bit more brutal with some of our members."

Nobody says anything when there is a violation of the 
guidelines.  This draft will not make any difference as long as 
people remain quiet.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I would describe it as editing instead of writing

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:33:45 +0200

SM,

I think this is an important document to update, but I would agree with
Harald's point that being nicer doesn't always do the trick.  When the
idea just doesn't work and cannot gain traction, some will take this
badly.  The best we can do is tell people "thank you for contributing,
but there is no consensus to move forward."  Often times we can indicate
that they've found a problem worth considering, but that the solution is
problematic for various reasons.

Also, I wonder whether we should put a bit more teeth into these
guidelines for egregious violations.  One gets the impression that we
should also require people to count to 10 before stating their
opinions.  Finally, I noticed something at the plenaries.  Nobody seems
to know what the open mic is for these days.

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:55:03 +0100

SM,

> guidelines. 

That is not fair by virtue of not being true.

Of course, there are many instances when no-one says anything, and there are
many people who feel hurt by having been treated badly and nothing having been
done about it.

But there are many cases where bad behaviour is handled sensitively and swiftly.
You probably do not hear about these cases and I hope you don't think that the
correct way to handle them is through public flogging.

What I hope is being uncovered is a way for bad conduct to be made visible to
those who can and will do something about it. A mechanism for complaint and an
avenue for report may be helpful, although I know that many will suggest that an
email to the right person is all that is needed.

I would also like to observe that the IETF is a community. As such it should be
self-correcting. If the "code of conduct" is breached in a public forum, the
very first step should be for the community to act. (And, yes, there will be
those who argue that such behaviour only serves to contract the IETF to a small
set of social norms - but then, I never said I wanted diversity, only
inclusivity :-)

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:19:15 +0200

Adrian,

> email to the right person is all that is needed.

With you, so far.

> set of social norms - but then, I never said I wanted diversity, only

What does this mean, concretely?

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:33:56 +0100

> What does this mean, concretely?

If you, as a member of the IETF community, see someone violating what is documented as a code of conduct or what you consider to be the norms of reasonable behaviour, it is your responsibility to step in (gently, politely) and stop the misconduct. If you are unable or feel unable to do so, it is your responsibility to report the misconduct so that it is handled.

And my parentheses refer to the fact that a community that is self-administering in this way may well tend towards inward-looking. Behavioural differences introduced by newcomers may be rejected by a conservative community. But then, I say, diversity of behaviour is not an aim (indeed, such would be antithetical to guidelines of conduct). The aim, IMHO, is unfettered access (i.e., inclusivity) to all within the aims of the IETF and within the rules and guidance for conduct that we set out.

Ciao,
Adrian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:39:49 +0200

> If you, as a member of the IETF community, see someone violating what is documented as a code of conduct or what you consider to be the norms of reasonable behaviour, it is your responsibility to s…

Perhaps it would be useful to add a few words about this into the doc,
and perhaps just so many words.
> And my parentheses refer to the fact that a community that is self-administering in this way may well tend towards inward-looking. Behavioural differences introduced by newcomers may be rejected by…

I agree on the whole, although I would use different words.  I think
what you are saying is that inclusivity serves the long term aims of the
organization.

Eliot

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:42:37 -0700

Hi Eliot,
>problematic for various reasons.

Yes.

Someone mentioned off-list that the draft discusses about good 
behavior but it does not say anything about how to handle bad 
behavior.  That sounds similar to the "a bit more teeth into these 
guidelines" (see quoted text).  The "count to 10" is good advice.  It 
is possible to request the suspension of posting privileges.  Let me 
add text about that in the next revision of the draft to start the discussion.

I agree with the comment about the open mic.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:28:54 -0700

Hi Adrian,
>That is not fair by virtue of not being true.

Ok.

>many people who feel hurt by having been treated badly and nothing having been

I was talking to a person (outside the IETF) and she mentioned that 
she did not have any friends.  I asked why.  She told me that she was 
being bullied and how it felt.  It is only when things go really 
wrong that people realize that they should have done something about it.

>correct way to handle them is through public flogging.

I am not suggesting public flogging.  There are various ways to say 
"please do not do that".

Yes.

A person would be more comfortable sending a message to someone who 
is approachable instead of sending it to the right person.

Yes.

At 04:33 19-08-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>If you, as a member of the IETF community, see someone violating 
>what is documented as a code of conduct or what you consider to be 
>the norms of reasonable behaviour, it is your responsibility to step 
>in (gently, politely) and stop the misconduct. If you are unable or 
>feel unable to do so, it is your responsibility to report the 
>misconduct so that it is handled.

I like the above text.

>And my parentheses refer to the fact that a community that is 
>self-administering in this way may well tend towards inward-looking. 
>Behavioural differences introduced by newcomers may be rejected by a 
>conservative community. But then, I say, diversity of behaviour is 
>not an aim (indeed, such would be antithetical to guidelines of 
>conduct). The aim, IMHO, is unfettered access (i.e., inclusivity) to 
>all within the aims of the IETF and within the rules and guidance 
>for conduct that we set out.

Agreed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:26:25 -0300

I think that you need to have in the main text, in the intro for
example.

    As mentioned, it is an important document and we need to know why we
need to update it.

    Also, as Lars mentioned, the text need to find a balance between
encouraging new participants to speak but doing it appropriately.

Regards,
as

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:58:23 -0400

Hi SM,
  Thanks for writing this draft. I do have a few comments myself, and I
agree with Arturo's comments about describing why the changes are being
made.

* Section 2 Point 1.

I think speaking slowly and clearly is certainly of value and should be
retained as BCP.

* Section 2 Point 3.

What does "think globally" mean here. It probably merits some
explanatory text. Otherwise it looks like just a buzzword.

* Section 2 Point 4.

* I don't think this text is really true anymore.

"This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as email archives can be
difficult to locate and search."

The tools page for the working group

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/<wg_name>/

contains at the top a navigation link for the list archives as well as a
search box (the datatracker page contains the link to the archive but no
search feature). Now you might argue that the tools page is not
official, but we can also work on a search feature for the datatracker
in the next codesprint. Maybe such information should feature
prominently in the newcomer tutorials.

* Probably worth adding the WG charter as reading material. Lot of the
misunderstanding of the newcomers relates to the charter and milestones.

Thanks
Suresh

On 08/17/2013 02:44 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> As an off-topic comment, I do not know what is an "asian accent".  I'll
> get back to the topic.  I think that there has been a positive change. 
> When people new to the IETF are treated unfairly people sit back and
> watch the show.  I guess that people forget how difficult it is when a
> person is new and that person has to grasp how a foreign culture works.
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:15:42 -0700

>agree with Arturo's comments about describing why the changes are being

I'll add an appendix about that.

Yes.

That point is attributed to Mike O'Dell and it predates RFC 
3184.  Harald Alvestrand explained it as "consider all the people who 
will feel the cost of" the solution.  I think that was what John 
Klensin was trying to explain when he commented about the "I" in the 
IETF.  I'll propose the following sentence:

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

>difficult to locate and search."

The email archives are not that difficult to locate.  Searching the 
email archives to locate the discussion of a topic is still a challenge.

>misunderstanding of the newcomers relates to the charter and milestones.

I'll add text about the charter and milestones.  By the way, the 
milestones is not that helpful in practice (e.g. see 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/charters ).

It is as difficult as before for the average IETF participant to 
contribute to ongoing work as:

   (a) It requires a significant number of hours weekly to follow the mailing
       list discussions.

   (b) The discussions between some parties is not always clear.

One of the ways I used in the working groups I participated in was to 
summarize the discussion every now and then.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:41:09 +0000

Hi,

On Aug 19, 2013, at 16:17, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The text from the draft is from a RFC which has been available for years.  As the issue happened despite that I would read it as meaning that that RFC and the draft is/will be ineffective.

depends on what you mean by "ineffective". If we believe that all participants will read the RFC and follow the guidelines, then yes, it will be ineffective. Similarly to how the Note Well and IPR guidelines are ineffective, in that many don't know them and don't follow them correctly.

But my definition of "effective" is different: I want to have something to point to that states our code of conduct and what the consequences are when it is violated, so that when gross misbehavior occurs, we can exclude someone from participating in the future.

(I wish we had this for the IPR guidelines as well, but that's a different discussion.)

> Shouldn't that code of conduct be more about attribution instead of legal rules?  For example, the text I am using in the draft comes from a document written by another person.  It would not be appropriate for me to take credit for that text.  If the idea I wrote as a proposal originated from someone else it the appropriate course of action might be to give credit to that person.

Sorry, I don't follow where editing etiquette comes in here. (Everything you say above it fine, I is don't make the connection to the code of conduct.)

>> writing it for ALL participants. As such, I'd rather see the phrase explained rather than erased.
> 

That does not capture the meaning of the phrase, I believe. At least to me, the meaning is "cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion, and try to provide data/facts for your different standpoints, so the rest of us who are sitting on the sidelines watching the fireworks can form an opinion."

> The IETF-like way sounds like evangelization.   The question I would ask is whether the IETF wants to convert people to its ways or respect the broad cultural differences.  Is the IETF accommodating the needs of all readers by expecting some readers to learn IETF slang?

You will not be able to expunge all the slang from the organization, there are decades of history here. And having a common vocabulary ("last call", "DISCUSS", "BoF", "appeal", etc.) of terms makes the communication easier. So I think the best we can do in the introductory/fundamental documents about the organization is to explain them as best as we can, so that people know what they mean when they come across them.

> Nobody says anything when there is a violation of the guidelines.  This draft will not make any difference as long as people remain quiet.

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.

Lars

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:15:46 +0100

Lars wrote:

> 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.

Just to observe that what you are asking for is rules, not a code of conduct or
guidelines.

Not to say that what you want is wrong (or right). Just to note that you are
asking for something very different from what SM is working on and that may lead
to you missing each other's points.

*A* way to address that is for the guidelines to be produced in one document,
and the ways of handling breaches to be in another document. That way progress
can be made on documenting the social norms of the IETF without being delayed
working out what the appropriate "punishments" are, and what the mechanisms of
judgement are.

Noting that in working on RFC 6701, we found that there are plenty of tools
available as sanctions. Perhaps one that is missing in *this* case is the
ability to eject someone from a face-to-face or virtual meeting.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:28:54 -0500

> working out what the appropriate "punishments" are, and what the mechanisms of

Speaking as an individual, I agree with Adrian that this is *a* way, and 
would further hope that other ways the community thinks about provide 
equivalent benefits (which I'm paraphrasing as "we don't have to reopen 
all the conduct discussions every time we talk about consequences, and 
we don't have to reopen all the consequences discussions every time we 
talk about conduct").

> ability to eject someone from a face-to-face or virtual meeting.

Adrian's note jogged my memory about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3934 
("Updates to RFC 2418 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418> Regarding the 
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", also published as BCP 94), which 
describes consequences for disruptive mailing list participants - that's 
the first tool that popped into my mind.

I expect Adrian is right, there are plenty of other tools, and there 
might still be holes. Perhaps if this discussion comes to include 
consequences, looking at the tools already available would be helpful.

Spencer

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:11 -0700

Yes.

Yes.

>ability to eject someone from a face-to-face or virtual meeting.

There is already a process document which can be used to eject 
someone from a face-to-face meeting.  It can also be used for virtual meetings.

At 09:28 20-08-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Adrian's note jogged my memory about 
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3934>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3934 
>("Updates to <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418>RFC 2418 Regarding 
>the Management of IETF Mailing Lists", also published as BCP 94), 
>which describes consequences for disruptive mailing list 
>participants - that's the first tool that popped into my mind.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:49:33 -0700

Hi Lars,
At 03:41 20-08-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>depends on what you mean by "ineffective". If we believe that all 
>participants will read the RFC and follow the guidelines, then yes, 
>it will be ineffective. Similarly to how the Note Well and IPR 
>guidelines are ineffective, in that many don't know them and don't 
>follow them correctly.

Agreed.

>But my definition of "effective" is different: I want to have 
>something to point to that states our code of conduct and what the 
>consequences are when it is violated, so that when gross misbehavior 
>occurs, we can exclude someone from participating in the future.

Adrian and Spencer commented about this.

>(I wish we had this for the IPR guidelines as well, but that's a 

That would be RFC 6701 for IPR sanctions.

>That does not capture the meaning of the phrase, I believe. At least 
>to me, the meaning is "cool off, take the intensity out of the 
>discussion, and try to provide data/facts for your different 
>standpoints, so the rest of us who are sitting on the sidelines 
>watching the fireworks can form an opinion."

Agreed.

>You will not be able to expunge all the slang from the organization, 
>there are decades of history here. And having a common vocabulary 
>("last call", "DISCUSS", "BoF", "appeal", etc.) of terms makes the 
>communication easier. So I think the best we can do in the 
>introductory/fundamental documents about the organization is to 
>explain them as best as we can, so that people know what they mean 
>when they come across them.

Yes.

>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.

Let me read the comments again and think about this.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:59:57 +1000

Hi Moonesamy,

I thank you for this draft, I want this draft to mention what is the
current practice and what should be fixed, or what is wrong with IETF
conduct. If I make the problem clear I will know the solution. Some people
don't want things to be clear in writting because they are managing the
current practice, but I think only the community SHOULD guide the practice
to better solutions of many unseen/unclear problems.

My idea on Guidance in such BCPs as yours:

Some times best practice is doing things friendly without procedure, and
some times best practices is doing things with procedure of conduct, so I
recommend that the draft can give space between thoes two reactions.
Furthermore, the community has no clear known action/decision related to
your draft, the community has no WG formed related to your draft, so only
managers realy are guiding IETF related works. I asked before a year to the
IETF Chair to form a known WG, but he did not think it was a right idea,
threrefore, the community is not having a body to guide your draft. What do
you think?

AB

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:44 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-**3184bis-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-00>).  The draft is a revision of RFC 3184.
>
>  When people new to the IETF are treated unfairly people sit back and watch
> the show.  I guess that people forget how difficult it is when a person is
> new and that person has to grasp how a foreign culture works.
>
> There is a Best Common Practices (BCP) about guidelines for conduct which
> was published in October 2001.  If that was indeed a BCP the diversity
> discussions should not have happened.  My guess is that it happened because
> what the IETF says and what the IETF does are two different things.  This
> draft will not change anything if there isn't any support from IETF
> participants.  Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/diversity<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:36:16 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 04:59 25-08-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>current practice and what should be fixed, or what is wrong with 
>IETF conduct. If I make the problem clear I will know the solution. 
>Some people don't want things to be clear in writting because they 
>are managing the current practice, but I think only the community 
>SHOULD guide the practice to better solutions of many unseen/unclear problems.

The draft is about the guidelines of conduct the IETF agrees 
about.  If people have an idea of what the general guidelines are it 
is easier for them to follow the guidelines.  The draft is being 
discussed by some IETF participants.

>Some times best practice is doing things friendly without procedure, 
>and some times best practices is doing things with procedure of 
>conduct, so I recommend that the draft can

Yes.

>give space between thoes two reactions. Furthermore, the community 
>has no clear known action/decision related to your draft, the 
>community has no WG formed related to your draft, so only managers 
>realy are guiding IETF related works. I asked before a year to the 
>IETF Chair to form a known WG, but he did not think it was a right 
>idea, threrefore, the community is not having a body to guide your 
>draft. What do you think?

There are individual efforts which may not require a formal working 
group.  A working group has an overhead, WG Chairs, a Responsible 
Area Director, etc.  If a General Area Director believes that a 
working group is recommended he or she can recommend that.  It is not 
something within my decision.

The IETF Community is deemed to have agreed to all BCPs.  I think it 
is better to do things in a friendly manner.  If that does not work 
there are actions that can be taken.  For what it is worth I have 
been involved in two highly contentious working groups.  I have an 
understanding of both sides of the problem.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:42:38 +1000

Hi Moonesamy,

The drafts that do BCP need a working group, it is not correct that IETF
allows for some people to do BCP without an agreed community on such
working group. General Area has already a DIRECTOR (the IETF Chair) but
sadly it has no WG, why is that, could some one answer?

There is a general Area but there is no WG, in my opinion why we have a
director of no working community, it seems like we have a director for no
diversity, we have a director of teams, or assigned groups that that
director wants, DO you think that is friendly with the community?

AB

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The draft is about the guidelines of conduct the IETF agrees about.  If
> people have an idea of what the general guidelines are it is easier for
> them to follow the guidelines.  The draft is being discussed by some IETF
> participants.
>
>
>> recommend that the draft can
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>  give space between thoes two reactions. Furthermore, the community has no
>> clear known action/decision related to your draft, the community has no WG
>> formed related to your draft, so only managers realy are guiding IETF
>> related works. I asked before a year to the IETF Chair to form a known WG,
>> but he did not think it was a right idea, threrefore, the community is not
>> having a body to guide your draft. What do you think?
>>
>
> There are individual efforts which may not require a formal working group.
>  A working group has an overhead, WG Chairs, a Responsible Area Director,
> etc.  If a General Area Director believes that a working group is
> recommended he or she can recommend that.  It is not something within my
> decision.
>
> The IETF Community is deemed to have agreed to all BCPs.  I think it is
> better to do things in a friendly manner.  If that does not work there are
> actions that can be taken.  For what it is worth I have been involved in
> two highly contentious working groups.  I have an understanding of both
> sides of the problem.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:15:52 +0000

Hi,

On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:42, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The drafts that do BCP need a working group,

that is not true. BCPs and standards track documents *can* be published as AD-sponsored documents without the need for a WG. See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html

> it is not correct that IETF
> working group.

That is your *viewpoint*. The IETF process allows for this.

Lars

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:13:23 +1000

Hi Lars,

I agree with you totally, but my input/subject is not for IETF list, it is
in diversity list. The draft mentions/concerns with diversity, or the
diverse community, please note that most participants in IETF are not
diverse much, so the works/drafts related are needing more efforts which I
think we need a WG (not a team assigned by management) for such BCPs under
the General Area, related to issues of the draft of Moonesamy.

AB

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]> wrote:

> that is not true. BCPs and standards track documents *can* be published as
> AD-sponsored documents without the need for a WG. See
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:16:22 +1000

Therefore, your reply is only correct if we are talking about BCPs that are
for non-diverse IETF, but if we want BCPs of diverse IETF we will need my
view point to become true, which is having an IETF WG for such works
as Moonesamy's
draft.

AB

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>> that is not true. BCPs and standards track documents *can* be published
>> as AD-sponsored documents without the need for a WG. See

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:08:33 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 02:42 27-08-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>The drafts that do BCP need a working group, it is not correct that 
>IETF allows for some people to do BCP without an agreed community on 
>such working group. General Area has already a DIRECTOR (the IETF 
>Chair) but sadly it has no WG, why is that, could some one answer?

draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis is an Internet-Draft.  Anyone 
can submit an Internet-Draft with an intended BCP status.  Lars 
Eggert explained about AD-sponsored drafts at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00233.html

>There is a general Area but there is no WG, in my opinion why we 
>have a director of no working community, it seems like we have a 
>director for no diversity, we have a director of teams, or assigned 
>groups that that director wants, DO you think that is friendly with 
>the community?

If the General Area Director sponsors this draft, the draft will 
still require IETF Consensus.  Assuming that I consider the lack of 
working group as a problem I would raise it as an issue and explain 
why it is a problem.  I would not use "friendly with the community" 
as an explanation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:14:50 +0200

Hi Moonesamy,

I understand your point, but I ment that I prefer a diversity WG that
carries this draft through not a draft that needs non-diverse groups
or needs director sponser. We still have no WG that considers the
issues related to diversity, it seems like we have in IETF a team that
consider that but I prefered that BCP related to be done by
diverse-group not a non-diverse-group.

AB

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:45:34 +0000

Hi,

> diverse-group not a non-diverse-group.

you seem to believe that a WG that would be formed to work on these issues would somehow inherently be more diverse than the design team is. I don't think that's a given.

Also, it will be crucial for any new guidelines in this space to have broad IETF discussion and consensus, which will require a long and in-depth IETF last call. It's not clear to me that front-loading a WG last call will really lead to any better result in the end.

Lars

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:27:10 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>diverse-group not a non-diverse-group.

The following persons commented on the thread about the draft:

   1. Arturo Servin
   2. Juliao Braga
   3. Lars Eggert
   4. Stephen Farrell
   5. Eliot Lear
   6. Adrian Farrel
   7. Suresh Krishnan
   8. Spencer Dawkins
   9. Abdussalam Baryun

Let's assume that the above is a non-diverse group.  What is a 
diverse group?   Which IETF mailing list should I use to communicate 
with the diverse group?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:00:27 +0200

Hi Lars,

This diversity list is not a WG and is not a general area space as far
as I understand it. This list and including the diversity team have no
charter/objetives. I don't beleive also that IETF list is a general
area list, I think that IETF list is a community list that watches all
IETF Areas, including managements/directors.

I like that All IETF documents get to last call IETF so we already
request the broad-community comments, but we need special WG that
represent community and welcomes new participants to the WORKS, but
the team designed does not have welcoming new memebrs/participants I
already tried, the team is assigned by management not by community, so
any work the team do is not open enough nor diverse enough. comments
below:

On 8/31/13, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]> wrote:
> you seem to believe that a WG that would be formed to work on these issues
> would somehow inherently be more diverse than the design team is. I don't
> think that's a given.

An IETF WG for diversity issues including milestones and charter will
be more representing/solving real problems in short term and long
term. I don't beleive that general groups can solve any specific
problem, but I like that general groups get to read LAST CALL and can
comment on specific/general issues related. I beleive not having any
General Area WG means that we as community are never given equal
chance in BCP issues and only directors and IETF management are
focused in thoes. The community has weak say in thoes issues because
they have no place as single WG related to General Area.

>
> Also, it will be crucial for any new guidelines in this space to have broad
> IETF discussion and consensus, which will require a long and in-depth IETF
> last call. It's not clear to me that front-loading a WG last call will
> really lead to any better result in the end.

I have no problem with broad discussions, but I requested specific as
well, IMHO, we need participations from all, new people, all world
regions, women, students,..to say what is the best practice.

Making think general and broad may make things with less value/guality,

AB

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:04:06 -0400

SM,

Interesting observation.

I've observed over the years that I have a high threshhold for sending
email to a mailing list. Speaking only for myself, I almost always get at
least some private responses, and they inflict discomfort often enough for
me to not enjoy this communication mode.

I especially feel caution about speaking of a female perspective as might
be natural in this diversity list.

The group you listed are people who demonstrably are less inclined to
hesitation.  I read that Facebook has signs up that say "What could I
accomplish if I wasn't afraid?" I am trying to remember it for more
situations.

If people who send sharp responses hesitate more, and people who are
nervous think more about what we can accomplish, list participation might
become more diverse.

Allison
On Aug 31, 2013 6:27 AM, "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Let's assume that the above is a non-diverse group.  What is a diverse
> group?   Which IETF mailing list should I use to communicate with the
> diverse group?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:20:12 +0200

> The following persons commented on the thread about the draft:

The above are IETF participants that read the draft, and they are
interested in the related General Area problem. Does the General Area
director care about this document, please check with the AD and reply.
The above names may help to form a new WG as an IETF General Area WG.

> diverse group?   Which IETF mailing list should I use to communicate

I beleive that in IETF we/you can get a diverse group, but the above
names are not enough. Diverse Group: is a group that has
included/represent all different participants interests/issues related
to IETF best practices or IETF procedures.

IMHO, you are using the correct mailing list (because we have no much
diverse group) and I think the General Area director can answer the
question better than me because ADs have better control to represent
community problems. Your draft covers an important problem in issues
related to General Area.

If I was an AD, my answer is that your draft to be discussed in both
IETF-list and in this diversity list, and that we try to issue a new
WG in General area, so that we can make things more specific for BCP
related to such problems.

In conclusion, to make the draft with better quality, my personal
answer to your question is to communicate (i.e. seek comments) with
the above persons and try to find others that make the diverse
direction (ex: find different ages, different gender, different
world-region participants, ..etc).

Thanks for your questions, please note that I would like to know your
opinion as well, because I just want the best for your draft and for
IETF. Finally, if we in IETF work together we will make it better,
because I beleive that usually indivduals (including experts) make
mistakes but usually WG don't.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:50:03 +0200

I agree that there are discomfort from some IETF communication related
to general area drafts, but I think the problem is because that we
have no WG in this diversity issue. WG related can meet in IETF
meetings and discuss more friendly and solve issues with
accomplishments. We can accomplish if we work together friendly and we
present all views without hidings or affraid.

AB

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:30:32 -0300

Replying various emails at once.

    I think that the group that commented the draft is diverse, obvious
it would be better a more diverse group but for a starting point it
looks good.

    I consider that this list is good to space to discuss initally the
draft before going to the general-list. And I do not think that we need
a WG for it. The bourocracy to set up a WG, to manage, etc. would be
like an elephant shut gun to kill a mouse.

    Finally, I think that the General AD (the IETF chair if I am not
mistaken) is well aware and concerned about  this topic of diversity.

    I haven't read the latest version of the draft but I will do next
week and to send some comments here.

Have a nice weekend,
as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:35:49 -0300

Abdussalam

    No, we do not need a WG. As I said the process to set up and manage
a WG just for one draft are over killing.

    A WG for diversity matters may probably be, but even there I am not
sure.

/as

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:42:50 -0700

On 8/31/2013 7:04 AM, Allison Mankin wrote:
> nervous think more about what we can accomplish, list participation
> might become more diverse.

(Hesitate and, even better, use more moderate tone.)

You're describing worthy goals, which leads to the question:

      How do we achieve them?

How do we help those with an aggressive style (learn) to be more 
moderate?  How do we help those with a more cautious style to be more 
adventuresome -- and help the rest of us make their adventure be 
comfortable?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 08:16:21 -0700

Hi Allison,
At 07:04 31-08-2013, Allison Mankin wrote:
>I've observed over the years that I have a high threshhold for 
>sending email to a mailing list. Speaking only for myself, I almost 
>always get at least some private responses, and they inflict 
>discomfort often enough for me to not enjoy this communication mode.

Many thanks for saying this.  The private responses inflicting 
discomfort might be one of the reasons why people may be wary of 
sending email to a mailing list.  The public responses can have a 
chilling effect on people who have not commented.

There is an interesting comment at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81773.html  My 
guess is that there is a significant number of people (old and new) 
who are wary to get involved in IETF discussions.

>The group you listed are people who demonstrably are less inclined 
>to hesitation.  I read that Facebook has signs up that say "What 
>could I accomplish if I wasn't afraid?" I am trying to remember it 
>for more situations.

:-)

>might become more diverse.

I would look at it differently.  If there were more people who send 
non-sharp responses sharp responses would not be seen as the average.

There was another interesting comment on a mailing list.  I'll quote 
it selectively:

   There was a group that were determined to do X.  So I didn't see 
much benefit
   in pushing my view.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:07:18 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>The above names may help to form a new WG as an IETF General Area WG.

If I ask the General Area Director whether he cares about this draft 
he will have to reply yes.  I can then argue that a WG is needed for 
it.  I am not making the life of the General Area Director easier by 
doing that.  As such I prefer not to ask that question.

>related to such problems.

I plan to discuss the draft on the main IETF mailing list at some point.

>world-region participants, ..etc).

The reason I posted a message about the revision of the draft is to 
seek comments.  If people are not inclined to comment on this mailing 
list it is not a good omen for the other issues unrelated to the draft.

In my opinion a working group also makes mistakes.  I would not 
define what is a diverse group.  I should send less messages to this 
mailing list as the amount of messages can be a burden for others.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy