Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 07 November 2013 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704E221E80AF for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z9r42+OzsLEr for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A2421E81B9 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:30:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA71U1lN002978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:30:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1383787814; bh=YjohU2/jJ3RU1g4CPPy4f+l4ioqrue8/2VQS5zfJnRU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=EiAGADs7H6JpYLz0wvR8t0cCVm6x8XlHBZAF/nvMIB6IKLbzbSISBFjq6WpoBrUr3 b5/bZnU1wyNcN50Umsm6bq8AfhVUifbMijW1eI3liFfgZ1xdoN1nh2f1rJlA2r0PZ4 gtMfoeDOYckF0KpsQuaWm1GLJUkdBIRZUlqDodAA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1383787814;; bh=YjohU2/jJ3RU1g4CPPy4f+l4ioqrue8/2VQS5zfJnRU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=zaaZUfmiVJ9buVBS7Dvn5Ikk1em0N8eu1mJhhVeun/PTaVe2Ogig2Y3GBBKLnpPlR zeNWk2yC8v3o61wk1PDeVhX2CS1sz6GSaoiXy4jO3bh3VHVhnF1hNHrnnbvjPJQ1C+ w3m5c48BuVJAyvJxwK64z22d1gmYBf7tAhVdyPY0=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:29:33 -0800
To: Arturo Servin <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <CALo9H1YmsjxU8Srdcnn--XRakrKsw_20+LQ=PrL5_9RW9=xzJw@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Ines Robles <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:31:00 -0000

Hi Arturo,
At 16:39 06-11-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
>I do not think it is a call for the shepherd to decide to add it or 
>not, but to us as a group.

The document shepherd is there to see that the issues are 
addressed.  What I meant was that if I do not address an issue the 
document shepherd could, for example, tell me "you forgot to address 
X", or "there is agreement to add text about Y and you did not do it".

>Also, I do not see why included the text or not will stop somebody 
>to sued the IETF, but I am not a lawyer.

I don't know the implications.

>And, as recent events of discussions about harassment, I am firmly 
>believe that this issue has to be addressed in the draft, if not as 
>a whole policy at least to mention that any type of harassment 
>(sexual, racial, etc.) should not be done.

There is a policy at 
I welcome any comments about how to fill the gap is the policy is 
considered as inadequate.

S. Moonesamy