[Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave, Narelle,

I have been assigned by the ISE to review 
draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01.  I apologize for the delay in 
delivering the review.

Summary:

draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 discusses about the the nature and 
practicalities of IETF attention to its diverse participation and to 
the requirement for professional demeanor.

Comments for author:

Section 1 of the document provides background information about the 
Internet Engineering Task Force.  The rest of the section discusses 
about issues relating to the conduct of IETF participants.  Section 2 
discusses and diversity, bullying and harassment.  Section 3 
discusses about constructive participation.  Section 4 discusses 
about unconstructive participation.

Is there is a link between diversity and professional 
conduct?   Would, for example, an aggressive culture cause diversity 
issues?  My response to those questions would be that there is a 
link.  Would would be the view of the average reader, especially 
someone who does not know much about the IETF, after reading the 
document?  The IETF might be viewed as an organisation comprised of 
"well-funded, American, white, male engineers" with a harassment or 
bullying problem to fix.

Section 2.2 does not fit in as it break the flow, i.e. the draft is 
discussing about the IETF issues, it then discusses about the nature 
and extent of bullying, then gets back to the IETF participation, and 
after that discusses about the IETF Track record.  It then discusses 
about participation again.  I suggest that the authors consider 
looking at the material in the draft as follows:

   1. Background information about the IETF

   2. Documented cases of problems with adequate consideration to anonymity

   3. What did the IETF do about it

   4. What was wrong in (3)

   5. What do the authors propose (optional)

The draft does not reference RFC 3774.  Shouldn't that RFC be taken 
into consideration for Section 1 given that the section provides some 
historical information?

The question I have to answer is why should this document be 
published in the Independent Submissions Stream.  Could the authors 
help me answer that question?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy