Hi Russ, David,
At 09:45 30-12-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
I have a few comments on draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05. I
do not know if any of the ADs think these concerns are worth
delaying the document, but in my view my third and fourth comments
need to be fixed before the document can become a Best Current Practice.
Thanks for reviewing the draft. I'll comment below.
1) As part of the first guideline, RFC 3184 includes these words:
> Native English speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly
and to limit the use of slang in order to accommodate the needs of
all listeners.
I think that this was good advice, and it is missing from the
current document.
The text in the draft is as follows:
"All participants, particularly those with English as a first
language, attempt to accommodate the needs of other participants
by communicating clearly. When faced with English that is
difficult to understand IETF participants make a sincere effort
to understand each other and engage in conversation to clarify
what was meant."
IETF attendees spend three weeks a year in meetings where they talk
to each other. However, that is not the only time when IETF
discussions occur. There are the mailing list discussions which
occur throughout the year. The guidance includes all that by saying
"everyone makes a sincere effort to understand each other". I can
speak slowly and avoid slang but that does not mean that I am making
an effort to understand the other person. The message, for example,
lists concerns about the draft. It is up to me to make an effort to
understand those concerns. I could start a conversation with the
other person if I do not understand something and politely ask the
other person to clarify something he or she said or wrote.
There is a discussion which led to the text change at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00284.html
2) As part of the second guideline, RFC 3184 includes these words:
> Or, said in a somewhat more IETF-like way:
>
> "Reduce the heat and increase the light"
I like the things that are added in 3184bis, but I'd like to see
this included at the end of the current text.
I posted a message about that text (see thread at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00204.html
) in which I mentioned that the "remove the heat ..." was removed as
it may not make sense to non-English speakers. An English speaker
who is not familiar with the IETF-like way might not understand the
meaning of that sentence. In my opinion it is better to keep the
guideline as clear and simple as possible.
3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is
working toward a global Internet. That is lost in the revised text,
and I consider this a major problem with the new text.
There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text
with that RFC 3935. I made the change in response to that
comment. I posted a message to the IETF mailing list about the
change (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84990.html ). I
took the comment posted by Dave Crocker into consideration (re.
consensus) in trying to figure out the text change to suggest.
There is already text in the draft which mentions that:
"IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
needs of diverse technical and operational environments."
How is the IETF working towards a global Internet? I would say that
it is by devising solutions which meet the needs of diverse
environments; it would be difficult to meet those needs if the IETF
is not open to competent input from any source.
4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF
participants follow the IPR rules in BCP 9. That is lost in the
revised text. Perhaps it belongs in a separate guideline, but it
should be recovered.
According to the "Note Well" (
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) the IETF's IPR Policy is
set forth in BCP 79. In my opinion it is better to keep the
guidelines of conduct separate from legal rules. Jari Arkko
mentioned that he was okay with that (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html
). An IETF participant will have to read BCP 79 anyway.
5) As part of the fourth guideline, readers are pointed to [TOOLS]
for WG charters. It would be better to point them to the official
charter pages: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
The text change was suggested in the message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html
If I recall correctly the easier reference was chosen instead of the
official one. The reason was so that newcomers can easily find
information for them to overcome the challenge of participating in
IETF working group discussions.
At 14:01 30-12-2013, David Farmer wrote:
I think the current text is mostly equivalent, expect the two
suggestions to speak slowly and limit the use of slang got dropped.
I think it would not hurt to add those suggestions back in, I
recommend something like the following.
... All participants, particularly those with English as a first
language, attempt to accommodate the needs of other participants
by communicating clearly, including speaking slowly and limiting
the use of slang. ...
I agree that it would not hurt to add those suggestions. That part
of the draft is phrased so that it is applicable to the communication
medium where the IETF discussion is being held. I'll highlight a
comment from Eduardo A. Suarez:
"What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a mailing
list someone's opinion is censored because misspell their ideas
or opinions."
and a comment from Solarus (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85043.html ):
"As a french reader of the IETF's lists, I strongly approve these words.
It's enough difficult for many people in the world to speak or write in
english when it's not their native langage.
And it's harder when people criticize you for doing mistakes."
I would describe the problem as being about understanding each other
instead of a one-way effort such as speaking slowly.
I'm not completely oppose to adding that back in, but I'm not sure
what value it adds. Further, I'm a little concerned it could
confuse some people, and I'm not sure it doesn't violate #1 above,
seems like slang to me or at least its a metaphor that not everyone
will be familiar with.
I already commented about this (see above). I once tried to explain
that sentence and what struck me was that I was getting into some
convoluted explanation about the metaphor when I could have got the
point across with a simple explanation.
I feel the current text captures that idea in the following;
IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
best solution for the whole Internet...
It's interesting to note that you and I chose different parts of the
text as a response. Please note that my response should not be
considered as the authoritative one.
I agree with the author, and I don't think it belongs in the
guidelines for conduct themselves. It dilutes the message regarding
personal conduct in my opinion. If its really necessary, I'd
suggest a new section, or maybe even better yet another Appendix,
something like the following;
X. Other Issues
While not directly related to conduct there are other important
issues for IETF participants to remember.
1. No Confidentially
There must be NO assumption of any confidentiality obligation with
respect to discussions at work group meetings or on mailing lists.
Therefore, please DO NOT discuss matters that are subject to any
confidentiality obligations.
2. Intellectual Property Rights
...
3. General Information
Other useful information about the IETF and working group meetings,
such as newcomer training, dress code, etc..., can be found in
"the Tao of the IETF" [TAO]
[TAO] <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>
There are a lot of things which are worthwhile to mention. By
mentioning every piece of good advice the draft will end up diluting
the message.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy