I like all the proposed changes, a few other comments below.
On 12/15/13, 18:09 , S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
Here is the list of suggested changes to
draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04:
The following paragraph could be added to the Abstract:
This document provides an updated version of the guidelines for conduct
originally published in RFC 3184.
At the end of the Introduction section:
This document obsoletes RFC 3184 [RFC3184] and reclassifies it as
Historic.
This is probably only a meta-data issue handled by the RFC-Editor, but
as this obsoletes RFC 3184, which is also BCP 57, this document becomes
BCP 57, which I believe is the intended result. I mostly just want to
confirm this, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the text itself.
...
There is a change to the first sentence in the second paragraph (in
Point 3). I'll comment on Dave Crocker's suggestion (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84978.html ). The
"as we build consensus in person and through email discussions" leaves
it to the reader to think about building consensus. Please note that I
agree with what Dave wrote about "unanimity". The proposed text
mentions that the IETF puts emphasis on "rough consensus".
I like the way you are handling Dave Crocker's "unanimity" suggestion,
and how you emphases the need to build consensus, while still making it
clear we don't require unanimity.
...
I replaced "All IETF participants" with "We".
Thank you, I think that makes it read a little cleaner. I also like how
this puts a little more emphasis on the fact that "we AIM to abide by
these guidelines", subtly acknowledging the imperfections of us all.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Thanks
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer@xxxxxxx
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================