[gaia] Re: Last call: IRTF Code of Conduct

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Jane.
Colin

On 22 Sep 2024, at 23:05, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hi Colin -
>
> That sounds reasonable. I think we can only set the parameters and 
> guard-rails and tweak things as we go.
>
> Best,
> Jane
> Jane Coffin
> Signal, Telegram, Text, WhatsApp
> +1.202.247.8429
>
>> On Sep 22, 2024, at 15:18, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jane,
>>
>> [inline; belatedly]
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2024, at 17:48, Jane Coffin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Colin -
>>>
>>> Comments inline back to you:
>>>
>>> Jane R Coffin
>>> Signal, WhatsApp, Text:  +1.202.247.8429
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 6:38 PM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jane,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Sep 2024, at 20:37, Jane Coffin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Colin -
>>>>>
>>>>> Two additional food for thought observations on the draft:
>>>>>
>>>>> In Section 5:
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.  Research Ethics
>>>>>
>>>>>   Participants must ensure that their research, in particular 
>>>>> research
>>>>>   that involves human subjects or personal data, is conducted 
>>>>> ethically
>>>>>   and with respect for persons, in careful consideration of the 
>>>>> risks
>>>>>   and benefits of the work, ensuring that those who bear the risk 
>>>>> also
>>>>>   gain some benefit, and with respect for the law and public 
>>>>> interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This clause in blue could be misinterpreted.  Perhaps we change 
>>>>> the
>>>> word "ensuring" to "noting"?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps “…taking care that those who bear the risk also gain 
>>>> some benefit”?
>>>>
>>> **That works.
>>
>> I settled on “taking care to ensure that those who bear the risk 
>> also gain some benefit” – hopefully that’s okay!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Section 6:
>>>>>
>>>>> Participants should work to enable remote participation in IRTF
>>>>>   events to support those who cannot attend in person, and should 
>>>>> aim
>>>>>   to make materials available online in a timely and broadly 
>>>>> accessible
>>>>>   manner.
>>>>> *By suggesting we will make materials "available online in a 
>>>>> ...broadly
>>>>> accessible manner"? Access is constrained to a degree.  Should we 
>>>>> qualify
>>>>> this somehow? [RFC2014]
>>>>
>>>> With “access is constrained to a degree” do you mean that some 
>>>> materials
>>>> are not publicly available or that some materials are not 
>>>> accessible to
>>>> remote attendees (or those with disabilities)?
>>>>
>>> I think the word "broadly" is the word that I am curious about.  I 
>>> think we
>>> are speaking specifically about access limited by current IETF 
>>> tools, yes?
>>> Not a complaint, just trying to understand what we mean.
>>
>> Right – the tooling and data formats might have hard-to-fix 
>> limitations that constrain what’s possible, so while we do that we 
>> can, we may not be able to meet every access need.
>>
>> Again, open to suggesting for better wording.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin