ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice

2013-11-08 06:14:19
Hi Moonesamy,

IMHO, that this document should be about guiding people that have
feelings not about people of no feelings. The respect intention is
very important but that needs remembering equality and fairness.
Humans forget alot, so the document reminds us as guiding our
inetraction/behavior.

I am still [DISCUSS] position, so reviewer comments to the author's
reply available below,

On 11/7/13, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 18:28 06-11-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Is draft title guide of interaction or is it principles of conduct
or is it for only personal interactions?

The title of the draft is "IETF Guidelines for Conduct".  The
interaction or personal interaction text is about people extending
respect and courtesy to their colleagues.

Ok, that is good but what is the conduct? I think you mean personal
conduct, so why not make the title: IETF Guidelines for Personal
Conduct. Please adjust or reply,


The use of the word firework is not suitable in such document,
please remove or replace.

I'll suggest the following text:

   "Cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion and try to
    provide data and facts for your standpoints so the rest of the
    participants who are sitting on the sidelines watching the
    discussion can form an opinion [SQPA]."

ok

What is the guide if the principles are violated, I think it needs
to mention that on draft, as to refer to an RFC.

There is some text about that in Appendix B of the draft.

ok

If this draft is a guide it should say guidelines in section 2, but
if the main section is principles then the title should say
principles of conduct. Why the author and contributors mixed between
IETF guidelines and IETF principles, I think they are different.

I see that you noticed that.  I'll suggest changing the title of Section 2
to:

   "Guidelines for Conduct"

Personal Conduct


I think the principles of conduct are not complete, and the aim to
build good discussions or reasonable consensus needs more additional
principles, four is not enough.

The draft does not provide guidance on how to build good discussions
or consensus.

I know that, but it will miss the aim of the document if it does not
make some guide principles to personal conduct. The conduct is about
inter-action which is discussions and consensus, so the actions are
inputs/documents/posts/consensus-sounds. So why you think the draft
SHOULD not provide guides to conduct that is aiming for better
interactions.

The conduct is not only about emails' discussion (seems by the draft
mentioning a), I recommend introducing f2f discussions and remote
discussions and how they interact which should add to the principles.

The guidelines in the draft can be extended to face-to-face
discussions.  For example,

   "IETF participants discuss ideas impersonally without finding fault
    with the person proposing the idea."

applies for face-to-face interaction.

I don't know how to cover remote discussions in the draft.

The draft SHOULD not discriminate between f2f or remote inputs and
actions, because the draft is about personal conduct in IETF. IETF is
mostly remotely interactions.


The draft does not mention some interactions in the IETF. IMHO it is
not only among individuals but also adding bodies and managers.

The draft is about people.  There are BCPs which discuss about the bodies.

Therefore, put in the title *personal conduct*. I support that the
draft focuses about people's interactions only not machines/bodies
interactions. That is why I mentioned before the important principle
of *intention* (bodies have no intentions, because it can be a machine
or system, systems have decisions and actions like us but no feelings
or intentions) that the draft needs to introduce openly without
avoiding.


I want to see the words fair and equal in the draft. Please add: All
IETF participants should/must treated equally and fairly.

In my opinion the above is already covered in RFC 2026.

I don't agree, the RFC2026 his more credit to management body or
manager to control work flow very little for personal conflicts
(RFC2026 does not solve many feelings issues), this RFC2026 is like a
systematic practice not sensitive enough for best personal conduct
practices. I mean fair and equal in many race, cultural and knowledge
levels. Why you don't want to repeat the word if necessary even if it
was said in all RFCs? IMHO, the document needs to represent the equal
and fair in ALL personal inter-actions.


There are three important items in principles of conduct: 1)
intentions, 2) ideas and decisions, 3) actions/inputs and their
ways/words used. The draft mixes them without showing their
values/principle guiding the IETF participant's behavior.

It is good that draft principle 1 is for intentions and actions. The
principle 4 is more about work/doc actions and work. Principle 2 and
3 mostly for ideas and treating all with fairness. However, I
recommend the principles should focus more and target the three
important items of conduct with more clarity, which may enable
adding more clear principles to be easy to follow by participants.

My response about the title of Section 2 might address some of the
above.  Please note that the draft does not discussion about
decisions.  That is covered in the relevant process documents.  The
fourth point in Section 2 is about participants contributing to
ongoing work.  How to contribute is less about conduct and more about
making the information about ongoing work accessible to
everyone.  There is an expectation that everyone will contribute in
his or her own way.

What about feeling decisions, as being friendly, or being ugly in
interaction, or making behavior of ignoring, or example: saying my job
is not to educate you, etc. Saying that is a decision and action, I
think you should think about its relation to personal conduct.


I asked someone from South America to review the draft.  The feedback
I received is that it is easily understandable by Portuguese speakers
(
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00205.html).
I haven't seen any other feedback mentioning that the draft is
difficult to follow.

It is understandable but not enough. It is like repeating what
government organisations are writting in their principles of conduct.
I am from Africa, and I reviewed the document, do you think my review
is not important, only America reviewers you accept. I may not
understood your point,


Once a IETF WG chair or AD replies saying I am not to educate other,
he is mixing between discussing with knowledge and  who is authorise
to judge, but forgot we should be doing interaction/conduct as a
team work discussions not team discriminations.

I don't know the context of the above.  It is up to the person to
determine whether he or she has made a sincere effort to understand
the other person engaged in the coversation.

Every one is making huge effort to add value and understand, which we
all SHOULD remember, without wrong intentions. The above context is
not important, but what is important is the inter-action, intention,
decisions, actions. No one in IETF should say/post to another I am not
here to educate you, specially when it is an AD or a WG chair. If one
person in IETF does not understand that will mean many in the
community did not understand because we are all equal, otherwise we
become non volunteers.

AB

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>