Hi Brian,
At 10:04 07-11-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Some comments.
1) I object to the change in the first sentence of the Introduction:
"The work of the IETF relies on cooperation ..." has become
"The work of the IETF relies on collaboration...".
I really think that "cooperation" is a significantly better word.
I want more than collaborators in the IETF (people who labor with
me). I want a spirit of cooperation. Also, "collaborate" has one very
negative meaning in English.
(Please compare http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperate
and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate.)
Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot about the case where
"collaboration" has a negative connotation. I'll change the sentence to:
The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of
people, ideas, and communication styles.
2) In the item "4. Individuals are prepared to contribute to the ongoing
work of the group", I quite understand why some text was considered
objectionable and was deleted. But I think the the following text should
not have been deleted:
"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."
I would probably tune the last part so that it reads"
"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
questions can be asked and answered on the list."
I'll comment as an individual. This was a thread at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html
The "not intended for the education of individuals" can be read in
various ways. I understand that there is a time constraint. If
there are five new persons, each taking one minute, at the microphone
I see that as five new persons feeling comfortable to participate in
the IETF. One of the points in the slide at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld016.htm is
"grow other people". Is it worthwhile to spend the five minutes of a
working group session on new participants? My answer is yes.
At the end of the Technical Plenary there was a woman who came to the
microphone to make a comment. I was interested in hearing her
opinion. 11% of the attendees at this week's meeting are new. A
quick look at the microphone line might show whether these attendees
are causing problems.
3) The Security Considerations say:
"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not affect the security of the
Internet in any way."
I'm not so sure. Try this:
"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the
Internet."
Thanks, I'll go with the suggested text.
(I thought about drafting some text about how misconduct could damage
security, but I think that rat hole can be avoided in this particular
document.)
Yes. :-)
4) Appendix A: Reporting transgressions of the guidelines
Maybe just add a hint about the ombudsperson?
"At the time of writing, the IETF is putting in place an
anti-harassment policy
and an ombudsperson to handle complaints."
I'll leave this one open and wait for more feedback. Please note
that I have read about the appeals.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy