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

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 07 November 2013 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8363921E80B5 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:45:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.434
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vmBXi4b+xk4o for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556C911E8141 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA77j84n026861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:45:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1383810321; bh=FrR4iF2vuQLJHBHoQlE6vYFl1SF1Mo2IEMHd5RVdbIk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=c+fEPomCi0pBELHU12nGORAbsOjWECnH+3m50BFLA/5WST0/KjEt70WfepDBQrtlx uFfQyhTwKzoyHjmT/OhCVxHiCXfMoMdhy2AZleJbTpwUjcFsLJ1A9FXYrWLt4gBBkQ O5KxmG7Z24JcEm4dY62G0JxWruJlDEwR+EqSjEgY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1383810321;; bh=FrR4iF2vuQLJHBHoQlE6vYFl1SF1Mo2IEMHd5RVdbIk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=W7RJR4xV+1SmdtrOZaNqkqZuXBOTRKuJIuDBrYcUDXiTXTabk6qghkvjKQJv7bflh fPjcrxylpEHDs/hbTPeaTWCgHw6zduQgc888rzVjDY9csoLk3qRsgJIa1ZVVfzlOTR 4+jjIUU9C64n/LbAfkbY/8XAC7CLMUdyQxW17X7Q=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:48:07 -0800
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
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: <CADnDZ8-OR55r2LJZo5JTemzt4Ueo=9B4izNWxSiybNFLGtzkYQ@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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 07:45:30 -0000

Hi Abdussalam,
At 18:28 06-11-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>Is draft title guide of interaction or is it principles of conduct 
>or is it for only personal interactions?

The title of the draft is "IETF Guidelines for Conduct".  The 
interaction or personal interaction text is about people extending 
respect and courtesy to their colleagues.

>The use of the word firework is not suitable in such document, 
>please remove or replace.

I'll suggest the following text:

   "Cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion and try to
    provide data and facts for your standpoints so the rest of the
    participants who are sitting on the sidelines watching the
    discussion can form an opinion [SQPA]."

>What is the guide if the principles are violated, I think it needs 
>to mention that on draft, as to refer to an RFC.

There is some text about that in Appendix B of the draft.

>If this draft is a guide it should say guidelines in section 2, but 
>if the main section is principles then the title should say 
>principles of conduct. Why the author and contributors mixed between 
>IETF guidelines and IETF principles, I think they are different.

I see that you noticed that.  I'll suggest changing the title of Section 2 to:

   "Guidelines for Conduct"

>I think the principles of conduct are not complete, and the aim to 
>build good discussions or reasonable consensus needs more additional 
>principles, four is not enough.

The draft does not provide guidance on how to build good discussions 
or consensus.

>The conduct is not only about emails' discussion (seems by the draft 
>mentioning a), I recommend introducing f2f discussions and remote 
>discussions and how they interact which should add to the principles.

The guidelines in the draft can be extended to face-to-face 
discussions.  For example,

   "IETF participants discuss ideas impersonally without finding fault
    with the person proposing the idea."

applies for face-to-face interaction.

I don't know how to cover remote discussions in the draft.

>The draft does not mention some interactions in the IETF. IMHO it is 
>not only among individuals but also adding bodies and managers.

The draft is about people.  There are BCPs which discuss about the bodies.

>I want to see the words fair and equal in the draft. Please add: All 
>IETF participants should/must treated equally and fairly.

In my opinion the above is already covered in RFC 2026.

>There are three important items in principles of conduct: 1) 
>intentions, 2) ideas and decisions, 3) actions/inputs and their 
>ways/words used. The draft mixes them without showing their 
>values/principle guiding the IETF participant's behavior.
>It is good that draft principle 1 is for intentions and actions. The 
>principle 4 is more about work/doc actions and work. Principle 2 and 
>3 mostly for ideas and treating all with fairness. However, I 
>recommend the principles should focus more and target the three 
>important items of conduct with more clarity, which may enable 
>adding more clear principles to be easy to follow by participants.

My response about the title of Section 2 might address some of the 
above.  Please note that the draft does not discussion about 
decisions.  That is covered in the relevant process documents.  The 
fourth point in Section 2 is about participants contributing to 
ongoing work.  How to contribute is less about conduct and more about 
making the information about ongoing work accessible to 
everyone.  There is an expectation that everyone will contribute in 
his or her own way.

I asked someone from South America to review the draft.  The feedback 
I received is that it is easily understandable by Portuguese speakers 
I haven't seen any other feedback mentioning that the draft is 
difficult to follow.

>Once a IETF WG chair or AD replies saying I am not to educate other, 
>he is mixing between discussing with knowledge and  who is authorise 
>to judge, but forgot we should be doing interaction/conduct as a 
>team work discussions not team discriminations.

I don't know the context of the above.  It is up to the person to 
determine whether he or she has made a sincere effort to understand 
the other person engaged in the coversation.

S. Moonesamy