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 11:29:12
Hi Abdussalam,
At 04:13 08-11-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
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 don't think that it is up to the draft to remind people not to be insensitive. It is unlikely that people who are insensitive will change because of what is written in a document.

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,

I did a quick search on part of the existing title. I did not find any occurrences of the word "personal". Please note that I am responding to why the title is what it is and not why the title is not something else.

Personal Conduct

Please refer to my previous comment.

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 definition of "conduct" is "the manner in which a person behaves". Discussions and consensus are covered by the relevant process documents. The draft is not about how to interact or discuss to reach consensus.

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.

I did not find any text in the draft which might encourage discrimination.

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.

Please see my comment near the beginning of this message about "personal conduct".

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.

I took a quick look at RFC 2026 before typing this. I found several occurrences of the word "fair" in the document. I don't see a need to repeat what is already stated in another BCP.

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.

There isn't any way for, for example, you to know that I am being friendly. I can write a nicely worded message but that does not mean that I am being friendly. It is up to the reader to determine whether this message contains platitudes, i.e. trite or banal remarks or statements, especially expressed as if it were original or significant.

If a person sends me the following reply: "my job is not to educate you", I would not ask the person to help me.

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,

It would be politically inappropriate for me to say that your review is not important. I could say that your review is very important; it would be a meaningless statement in my opinion. The point is to get different readers to assess whether the draft is easy to understand.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>