Hi Hector,
At 14:50 31-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process,
I get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going
to be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due
diligent engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews,
including increasing conflict of interest concerns.
There is a lost of engineering diversity when there is a lack or
lost of industry representation. Folks who shy away, turned off or
excommunicated based on leveraging conduct policies, we get a
behavior I call "Consensus by Osmosis" -- rough consensus, higher
potential for appeals and huge LC debates.
I don't find appeals to be a problem. I don't find huge Last Call
debates to be a problem. Unpleasant behavior is a problem as it
creates an unworkable climate. I don't think that it is possible to
build consensus in such circumstances.
Lars Eggert made the following comment:
"I actually WANT this draft to talk about the CONSEQUENCES (posting rights
getting taken away, personal attendance made impossible, etc.) of not
following the code of conduct! I think that would be by FAR the most
impactful addition we could make."
Some of the above is already possible (see Appendix B).
Anyone having concerns about conflict of interest can raise the
concerns. This draft does not prevent that from happening. This
draft is not about cross-area reviews.
Perhaps this draft should has some statements about what is expected
of the project leaders in the area of processing participant inputs.
I think the draft should also define or describe:
- Participants
- Individuals
- Project Leaders (AD, CHAIRS, EDITORS?)
The roles are discussed in RFC 2418.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy