Hi Moonesamy, 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 am still [DISCUSS] position, so reviewer comments to the author's reply available below, On 11/7/13, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. 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, > >>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]." ok > >>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. ok > >>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" Personal 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. 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 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 SHOULD not discriminate between f2f or remote inputs and actions, because the draft is about personal conduct in IETF. IETF is mostly remotely interactions. > >>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. 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. > >>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. 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. > >>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. 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. > > 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. 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, > >>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. Every one is making huge effort to add value and understand, which we all SHOULD remember, without wrong intentions. The above context is not important, but what is important is the inter-action, intention, decisions, actions. No one in IETF should say/post to another I am not here to educate you, specially when it is an AD or a WG chair. If one person in IETF does not understand that will mean many in the community did not understand because we are all equal, otherwise we become non volunteers. AB