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.
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]."
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.
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"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy