Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:43:14 -0700

Hi Sandra,
At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing 
>to progress our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target.

I am quoting the above out of context.

One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critical or 
disrespectful attitude".  A person has feelings.  Being discourteous 
towards a person can be hurtful for that person.  An organization 
does not have feelings.  My reading of the above is that I have to be 
respectful towards an organization.  To illustrate the case it might 
be construed that the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html was 
disrespectful towards an organization.

An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to 
conclude that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an 
organization.  I understand that there are times when one has to put 
a stop to all negative remarks to avoid having a working group run 
out of control.

I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:42:26 +0200

It is useful to relate progress to work quality or participants
discussions. Feelings have no much value in engineering work/interaction,
but in social interaction it is good to have good feelings with all people.

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

>> Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing to
>> progress our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target.
>>
>
> towards a person can be hurtful for that person.  An organization does not
> have feelings.

IMHO feelings do not help progress in our engineering interests/works, but
what matters are positive criticisms to process-drivers and organisation
bodies.  There may not be progress because many participants ignore to
participate in process issues (or general area issues).

My reading of the above is that I have to be respectful towards an
> organization.  To illustrate the case it might be construed that the
> message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html
> was disrespectful towards an organization.
>
> organization.

It just means that no use from remarks because that efforts will not
change. Text Seems to say management are not democratic enough to consider
such marks.

> I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop to all
> negative remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control.

A negative in one side may be a positive in the other side, but for the
organisation to be positive needs all parts to share, and work together in
discussions and reviews.

> I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd.

I don't think so, usually criticising (related to draft/work/performance) a
business is more useful than criticising a person in terms of its effects
on work/process.

AB

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:48:42 -0400

Hello,

I've been read through the various responses and do want to assure folks
that diversity is important to the IETF and its leadership.  I had separate
conversations with Jari, Russ, and several ADs on next steps while in
Toronto last week.  This is an important topic that will require continued
improvements as change does not happen overnight.

I am sorry to hear that some sessions may have had interactions that were
not agreeable to remote participants.  I have actually noticed a difference
and improved behavior of all participants in the sessions I attended.  I
was very pleased to see this change and to hear others making similar
comments.  There are bound to be issues still and we'll have to work
together.

While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help improve
behavior, it will take all members to truly have an impact.  In one
security session I attended, the room got very hot, which would not have
been apparent to remote participants.  This resulted in the meeting
attendees becoming cranky over time.  While the room temperature was
corrected, the behavior (while not that bad), was corrected by
participants.  The WH chair or AD could have done the same thing, but the
quick acting participant had a very positive impact (as did the temperature
in the room going down).  The type of changes that the IETF has been
working to correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and
it does take time.  We will have to continue to work at this and calling
out specific behavior can help.  Additional work needs to happen and
helpful suggestions for improvement are welcome.  Additional education is
one of the ideas being discussed.  AB, you may have have noticed the long
threads on the IETF list as well, we all agree that this is an important
area for improvement int he IETF.

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> have feelings.  My reading of the above is that I have to be respectful
> towards an organization.  To illustrate the case it might be construed that
> the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/
> msg87153.html was disrespectful towards an organization.
>
> organization.  I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop
> to all negative remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control.
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:00:58 +0100

SM,

> I am quoting the above out of context.

And so will I :-)

> I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd.

Actually, it is *all* about giving persons consideration, but the impact of
attacking an organisation can be the same as that of attacking a race or
nationality, or any other generality.

If you work for FooCorp and say something at the mic, my response that "FooCorp
is well known for its stupid ideas and anti-competitive nature" might be true,
but would also be a proxy attack on you and what you said. If I had said the
same thing commenting on your race or religion it would clearly have been over
the line. 

One benefit of the IETF myth that we are all individuals is that, while we
acknowledge corporate affiliations for transparency, we also contribute, act,
and are judged on technical merits not according to other attributes (such as
beards, height, or good looks).

Essentially, therefore, *any* comment that is not closely linked to the
technical content of discussions is at best irrelevant and at worst an attack on
an individual or a class of individuals.

Pip pip,
Adrian

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:18:13 +0200

> but would also be a proxy attack on you and what you said.

+1

> an individual or a class of individuals.

Specifically, “FooCorp makes its money selling the more powerful chips into this business and therefore has a vested interest in preferring the more complex solutions” (completely hypothetical example, of course) would be a *valid* comment on somebody from FooCorp giving their opinion on a complexity-vs-functionality issue, even though a slight undertone about attacking the commenter’s integrity cannot be avoided (intended or not).

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:20:42 -0700

Hi Adrian,
>same thing commenting on your race or religion it would clearly have been over

Let's say you working for a company called Old Dog.  I see you in the 
room and I use the words "stupid" and "anti-competitive" to describe 
Old Dog in response to something you said.  The working group chair 
could scold me.  This is where I say that it is censorship. :-)

>beards, height, or good looks).

This is the core of the problem.  On one hand we say that we are all 
individuals and on the other hand some people might consider the 
proxy attack as a personal attack.  Let's assume that we do not wish 
to encourage proxy attacks.  The person chairing the session would 
have to put a stop to that discussion immediately.

>an individual or a class of individuals.

Yes.

It is not worth the effort to define what is an attack [1] as people 
will find a way around that.  I guess that I would look at the 
interaction and say something about it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. See comment from Carsten

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:09:40 -0700

Hi Kathleen,
At 18:48 27-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help 
>improve behavior, it will take all members to truly have an 
>impact.  In one security session I attended, the room got very hot, 
>which would not have been apparent to remote participants.  This 
>resulted in the meeting attendees becoming cranky over time.  While 
>the room temperature was corrected, the behavior (while not that 
>bad), was corrected by participants.  The WH chair or AD could have 
>done the same thing, but the quick acting participant had a very 
>positive impact (as did the temperature in the room going 
>down).  The type of changes that the IETF has been working to 
>correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and it 
>does take time.  We will have to continue to work at this and 
>calling out specific behavior can help.  Additional work needs to 
>happen and helpful suggestions for improvement are 
>welcome.  Additional education is one of the ideas being discussed.

There was a letter written in March 2013.  There has been an IETF 
statement related to behavior.  A draft, intended as a BCP, has been 
discussed.  Have there been any results since then?  I don't really know.

I followed a few sessions remotely.  It was the usual (not bad).  The 
plenary highlighted that there are a lot of people who do not read 
the ietf@ mailing list and there is high probability that they do not 
read this mailing list.  These people have the ability to influence 
the choice of IESG members.  Some of these people have been in the 
IETF longer than most of the people on this mailing list.  I doubt 
that education would work.

There are advantages and disadvantages for calling out specific 
behavior.  The advantage is that people do not see a problem unless 
it is pointed out to them.  A disadvantage is that it is bad for 
one's career.  Will there be a loss of expertise if specific behavior 
is being called out?  Yes.

As a formal comment, the IESG is responsible for behavioral 
matters.  Having been through these problematic situations twice I 
find it difficult to blame the IESG.  I am not convinced by the "it 
takes time" argument as it is well-known that there are repeated 
offenders.  It is not possible to get all members to help.  If that 
is the what it is needed to truly have an impact I would say that it 
is an unachievable objective.

I think that you identified one suggestion, i.e. the quick acting 
participant.  There is issue management; that can provide an idea of 
what to expect in a session.  The person chairing the session is 
responsible for what is happening in the room.  He or she could guide 
the discussions so that the controversies do not blow up out of proportion.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:26:48 -0400

Hi SM,

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> one of the ideas being discussed.
>>
>

No BCP was published.  A reading list was compiled in a draft and summary
presentations were provided.

> plenary highlighted that there are a lot of people who do not read the ietf@
> mailing list and there is high probability that they do not read this
> mailing list.  These people have the ability to influence the choice of
> IESG members.  Some of these people have been in the IETF longer than most
> of the people on this mailing list.  I doubt that education would work.
>

Education won't work for everyone, I agree.  I did however have a number of
people mention that they learned a lot and could better see the other
person's point of view.  Even having some change has been good.

> There are advantages and disadvantages for calling out specific behavior.
>  The advantage is that people do not see a problem unless it is pointed out
> to them.  A disadvantage is that it is bad for one's career.  Will there be
> a loss of expertise if specific behavior is being called out?  Yes.
>

On the flip side, we could loose a lot of other valuable talent if it is
not called out.  The behavior I noticed that was called out was not one
that would damage someone's career, but someone calling it out was the
right thing to do.  It set a tone and drew a line as to what would be okay
in that setting.

>
> As a formal comment, the IESG is responsible for behavioral matters.
>  Having been through these problematic situations twice I find it difficult
> to blame the IESG.  I am not convinced by the "it takes time" argument as
> it is well-known that there are repeated offenders.  It is not possible to
> get all members to help.  If that is the what it is needed to truly have an
> impact I would say that it is an unachievable objective.
>

I am sorry you have been through problematic situations even once.  I agree
that not everyone will help, but some that will can make a difference and
it will never be perfect.  I think the poll Jari took about IETF list was
telling, many juts won't use it to avoid the noise.

> participant.  There is issue management; that can provide an idea of what
> to expect in a session.  The person chairing the session is responsible for
> what is happening in the room.  He or she could guide the discussions so
> that the controversies do not blow up out of proportion.
>

Agreed.  In this case, the room temperature was pretty unbearable and I am
sure that was a factor.  The issue was corrected and everyone was happier.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:25:34 -0700

Hi Kathleen,
At 12:26 28-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>Education won't work for everyone, I agree.  I did however have a 
>number of people mention that they learned a lot and could better 
>see the other person's point of view.  Even having some change has been good.

Yes.

>I am sorry you have been through problematic situations even 
>once.  I agree that not everyone will help, but some that will can 
>make a difference and it will never be perfect.  I think the poll 
>Jari took about IETF list was telling, many juts won't use it to 
>avoid the noise.

I should have explained this.  I was aware that I was volunteering 
for problematic situations.  I could have said no in both cases.

I'll highlight something from your message:

>The issue was corrected and everyone was happier.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy