Re: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 11:02 31-08-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It seems like this would be a good time for an update.  A few
comments:

. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
  granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
  may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
  made explicit.  One that really popped out at me while
  reading this is that we may need to be clearer that people
  are participating in the IETF as individuals and
  contributions are evaluated in that light

Yes.

. I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior;
  that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough
  consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build
  consensus rather than to "win."

As a quick reply, it may be possible to put that under Item 2 in Section 2. My preference would be to pick a comment from Ted Lemon {1]:

  "Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your
   own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be
   correct in contradicting your position."

and use the above to mention "sincere effort".

. I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of "violating
  guidelines

I added that based on a comment from Lars Eggert [2]. The word "breach" may be more appropriate. I should have used the word "consequences" for Appendix B.

. I think it was a good idea to remove text that could be
  discouraging to new participants.

There was a comment from Lars Eggert [3]:

  '"when you begin to participate in a WG, maybe approach the chairs or
   longer-term participants in order get a view on whether the issues
   you wish to discuss fit the current work of the group."
   Rationale: I HAVE seen newcomers raise issues that were either outside
   the scope, or raise them in ways that got them a bad reception, and a
   little caution about how to get the best result is IMO good.'

My preference is for that to be part of the Newcomers tutorial and/or the Tao instead of a guideline for conduct.

At 11:15 31-08-2013, Phill wrote:
I think it would be useful to point out that there is a big difference between getting a draft published as an RFC and getting the proposal deployed.

The point of the IETF process is that it provides an opportunity to build the consensus necessary to deploy the proposal. The consensus is the real product, the documents are secondary.

It would be better to discuss the above as part of the tutorial material.

It is also the case that some consensus matters more than others. A proposal cannot be deployed without the support of people who write code and operate infrastructure that must be changed. So people who work to effect a back room carve up that cuts those people out of the process are wasting everyone's time

Proposals which do not have the support of the people who write the code tend to be ignored by the people who write the code.

At 11:15 31-08-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
Might be worth referencing Pete Resnick's draft; at this point, casting it as one person's 'exploration' of the concept might avoid taking it as official, while still treating it as useful.

My preference is to use "sincere effort". I'll wait for Pete Resnick to argue why his draft should be referenced. :-)

By way of operationalizing the idea of discussing-to-build-consensus might be emphasizing both explanation -- to help people understand a view -- and modification -- to adjust the view based on feedback.

I think that it would be good to have a discussion of that draft when Pete Resnick says that it is ready for discussion.

A characteristic of talking to win, rather than explore, is having a very rigid manner of making comments, essentially only re-stating a point. By contrast, real discussion incorporates comments being made, rather than merely seeking to refute them.

The problem may be that it is not clear whether the point will be considered as valid. There may be a view that restating a point is useful or else the point will be noticed. In a long thread some points do get missed. I'll mention an interesting comment:

 "I almost always get at least some private responses, and they inflict
  discomfort often enough for me to not enjoy this communication mode"

It is not possible to have a real discussion if people do not feel comfortable to discuss.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81864.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00222.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00243.html




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]