Hi David,
At 16:29 07-11-2013, David Farmer wrote:
In general I agree with keeping the particular issue of harassment
out of the draft. However, there are some concepts in the
Anti-Harassment Policy that may be worthy of including. I believe
the first paragraph of the policy is an excellent summary of what
the guidelines intend to achieve.
IETF meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists are intended for
professional collaboration and networking. The IETF strives to
create and maintain an environment in which people of many different
backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Those
who participate in the IETF are expected to behave according to
professional standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace
behavior.
I'm not suggesting you simply insert that text, but maybe ensure all
of the ideas or concepts are embodied within the draft. In
particular I'd like to see the concepts of "professional standards"
and/or "workplace behavior" more directly included.
I'll list some words from the text:
- dignity
- decency
- respect
There is the following text in the draft:
"Regardless of these individual differences, participants treat
their colleagues with respect as persons ..."
There isn't any mention of the word "dignity" or "decency". These
two words usually appear in a code of ethics. I would argue that
"professional standards" and "workplace behavior" are influenced by
social norms. As an example, a speaker disclosed his affiliations in
his opening remarks at the Technical Plenary. The degree to which
that is done varies. People generally do not do that in a workplace
as everyone works for the same company. I am listed as the document
editor of the draft. It must have crossed people's minds whether I
am doing it to get a vanity RFC. It is unlikely that the average
IETF participant would ask that question.
In some cultures it may be frowned upon if a person is
confrontational. Being confrontational may be considered as
acceptable behavior in other cultures.
Let's say I add the word "professional" to the draft. Someone will
ask: what is the meaning of the word? Is the person being
difficult? I don't think so. What seems obvious to a person may not
be that obvious to another person. In essence, people would like to
know what is acceptable or what is not acceptable.
Additionally, a little shot of the "Golden Rule" wouldn't hurt
either, its always a good idea to remind people think about how they
would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.
There is the following sentence in the draft:
"Seeing from another's point of view is often revealing even when it
fails to be compelling."
The preceding sentence could be changed to:
Regardless of these individual differences, participants treat their
colleagues with respect as persons especially when it is difficult to
agree with them; treat other participants as you would like to be treated.
and the "Seeing from ..." sentence be removed.
Finally, in my opinion, part of being "professional" is to apologize
when from time-to-time we each act in an unprofessional manne, we
all fail occasionally. And, regarding Appendix A, a simple polite
request for an apology is frequently the most professional,
appropriate, and expeditious coarse of action.
A person might have sent a hasty message or maybe the message was
poorly worded. Mistakes do happen. I prefer not to explain that a
meaningful apology might help to resolve the problem. My reading of
the word "meaningful" is that the person means what he or she says.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy