On 10/31/21 11:18 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I've always interpreted that as denoting actually being knowledgeable
about that which you speak, exercising a measure of judgement &
restraint, and adhering to a code of professional ethics & decorum.
It's what we expect of our doctors, lawyers, and... ENGINEERS. It is
an ENGINEERING Task Force, after all. And I would hope that most of
us here are actually engineers, with some reasonable level of
engineering knowledge, experience, and professionalism.
Lately I've been asking myself how I would define "professional" in an
IETF context. What I've come up with so far is (no particular order):
1. Be competent and well-prepared.
2. Let people with appointed roles do their jobs. It's okay to publicly
and respectfully object when you believe they've not done their jobs
properly, and there are various remedies like appeals that can also be
used. But it's not ok to try to prevent them from doing their jobs.
3. Follow the Guidelines For Conduct.
4. Treat fellow participants as equals in technical discussions (while
respecting any appointed roles they have in IETF), regardless of their
day jobs (or lack thereof) or who they work for.
5. Whatever you’re working on, try to help build consensus or craft or
find a compromise that can attract broad support. Again you’re free to
withhold support or to point out problems with a proposal, you’re free
to offer alternative proposals, and/or to appeal formal decisions, but
not to obstruct discussion. State/log your objections and move on (But
you should have a reasonable expectation that such objections will not
be forgotten and be reviewed again at last call time).
As for ethics, I'm reminded that when I earned an engineering degree I
was encouraged to take a solemn oath to always act with regard for
public safety. In the Internet context I might argue that there's a
duty to act with regard for the security and privacy needs of the public.
Keith
