Re: [edu-team] Discussion on PPT: "Values and Unwritten Rules of the IETF"

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02/12/2015 06:44, [e-mail] wrote:
> Alvaro and I have been having discussions about the PPT:  "Values and Unwritten Rules of the IETF" and we wanted to get the opinions of the mentoring & EDU teams as well as some of the other people who have been involved in discussions about the PPT.
> 
> These are the items to discuss:
> 
> 
> 1.  The main point is that this is really one person's (basically) (Nalini's) opinion.  There is no consensus document that outlines the values of the IETF.   For example, "RFC7704 An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional Conduct" which was just published speaks of the pervasive bullying which some feel goes on at the IETF.

Wearing my hat as a member of the Independent Submissions editorial board,
I can tell you that the decision to publish that RFC was heavily contested,
and it definitely does not represent IETF consensus in any way, shape or
form.

> 
> There are other RFCs which speak of the goal of the IETF as being to write RFCs.  This directly contradicts this presentation.  For example:
> RFC3935 (A Mission Statement for the IETF – a BCP) says this:
> 
>    The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
>    technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
>    design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
>    Internet work better.  These documents include protocol standards,
>    best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.
> 
> RFC2026 (The Internet Standards Process — also a BCP):
> 
>    The goals of the Internet Standards Process are:
>    o  technical excellence;
>    o  prior implementation and testing;
>    o  clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;
>    o  openness and fairness;  and
>    o  timeliness.

I don't see how those contradict the presentation. They are about the
purpose of the IETF (and it's the purpose that generates the funding,
since companies surely wouldn't fund attendance if we didn't meet the
purpose).

We have already quite a lot written about conduct of participants:
http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html#rfc.section.2.6
(and draft-farrresnickel-harassment will be added there when it
becomes an RFC).

The Tao already says quite a lot about how the IETF operates in reality.
If there's some measure of agreement in the community for the points
in your slides, it could be proposed as an appendix to the Tao.
If not... it's an opinion piece, like RFC 7704.

> 2.   There is a book published by Peter Gloor which talks about the IETF as a Collaborative Innovation Network (COIN).  

He's not the first to treat the IETF as a sociology lab. I don't think
he's ever attended.

<snip>

> But, this is NOT an IETF consensus document.
> 
> 3.  The reason that I (Nalini) wanted to do this kind of document in the first place is that I was involved in 3 separate incidents at IETF94 where there was a misunderstanding of "values".  For example, one person (American male) felt that his I-D was not proceeding because he did not attend (or know about) the Scotch BOF and that many decisions were made by an "inner circle".  I assured him that I fell asleep and forgot to go to the Scotch BOF and that did not in any way impede the progress of my I-D (that I know of! HAHA).

I hope you told him how to join the inner circle. Actually, a presentation
on that topic would be fun to develop.

> 
> The other issues have to do with people from Asian cultures and the "honesty" and "transparency" at IETF.  As a first-generation Asian immigrant, I straddle cultures so I understand their (our) point of view.  In the coming years, having cultural diversity will be even more important at the IETF.  The current frank interchange is in the range of normal (if at the extreme range) for Western cultures but off the spectrum for others, in particular Asian cultures.   They want to participate fully in the IETF and I, for one, believe it is of tremendous value.  But, for them, it is important to speak with respect for their cultures and to let them know why the frankness exists.   We all share the value of "engineering truth".

Sure. I think this is useful although quite hard to do.

> 4.  So, how do we want to proceed?   Should this be an official mentoring / edu document when we actually do not have consensus on it and frankly, some people will disagree.  (I, Nalini, am happy to do this as Nalini's Experience and Opinions on the IETF.)   Should we do an I-D on this?

Yes. The more IETF consensus we have on the result, the greater the impact.

> Alvaro feels that sharing experiences from a mentoring point of view is ideal.  In general, that is what I (Alvaro) want from my mentors: for them to share experience and experiences with me.  All the rest I can go read.
> 
> An I-D doesn't (eventually) guarantee anything related to consensus.  rfc7704 was discussed on the ietf@ietf list, 

As far as I can see, by only 3 people + 1 author.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&start_date=&end_date=&email_list=&q=subject%3A%28draft-crocker-diversity-conduct%29&as=1

Maybe it was also discussed on the diversity list.

> but is not a consensus document.

And it will (I (Brian) predict) sink like a stone.

> 
> Personally I (Alvaro) would see more value in people sharing experiences than in trying to make everyone fit a single values/culture mold — somewhere in my mind that is counter to diversity..

Sure, but there are some basics. What I find interesting is that we have
extremely successful participants from cultures that are notorious for
being very status-based, not to mention unsuccessful participants from
supposedly outspoken cultures. So I think the IETF culture has its own
strengths for anybody to find.

Regards
    Brian