IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F54411E819A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:31:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sv+1RGnepsxa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22c.google.com (mail-wg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146CE21E80B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id k14so577461wgh.23 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:31:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tjo7NA2LYlbc7PXef0te30PWiKKR9ImY2NgxzPEf4Ig=; b=lr9G10HBO8z6FBkSJUegoBqeTh/TmHa8h3a0mAv0u7CgrCxzfpLR3XtTZ+3lz9IQUk u7Y1mQ+QF5+1dIKtHXb3kRDEAa7v7VfU5oMRsVtH1V/NIhkn4WUNeg6T9t2Ag+LZKq82 Upu/IdfCorpAapjo+Wi8mVW2gDUm2D8/PGLWkZojBY+hWytKACuNHWe9eZNulvbDkSDC Jr2vX1O9pKOQAOqb0yqJ/vg84N2YXeEaVWHZVO4L+cjcxD/DjzX1H9Mcc7ERodx9GdDs CbZvW3cgx6SWK1r0hNLeDF/+GpnMkX2zqQmpI/QbCrBo6GjEul37Fie3bWc9KAa/pVu+ AvHQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.12.52 with SMTP id en20mr1697935wjd.55.1383928296147; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:31:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131106165626.0dd3f6e0@elandnews.com>
References: <20131103150309.1554.26103.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALo9H1aExXmYfOgjj3kofAZ3VOCR_ysZT8qOjQZqr7SP-GNQZA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131106153355.0dee0ae0@elandnews.com> <CALo9H1YmsjxU8Srdcnn--XRakrKsw_20+LQ=PrL5_9RW9=xzJw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131106165626.0dd3f6e0@elandnews.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:31:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZg9QTJ80Odhz0q_Vf6OnzrKFQYF=N9ckpATryo18bLyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd913187c907704eaacea46"
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:31:40 -0000

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
+1.


>
> 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".


The document shepherd has the same responsibility as the editor, which is
to confirm that the document reflects consensus of the community on all
points (plus the IESG followup stuff).  Authority (such as it is) to decide
what's in and what's out lies with the community.  The worst that could
happen is that the author and shepherd disagree about what has consensus,
and at maximum the shepherd could note the discrepancy in the document's
writeup and let the IESG determine consensus on the disputed point.

Who is the shepherd for this one?  The tracker shows none assigned.

Anyway, I agree that the document ought to mention, at least in an
appendix, the harassment and ombudsperson points.  It's not a normative
document so there are no concerns about the IETF being bound to some
particular structure in that area.

I wonder, too, if this topic should be reflected in the Tao, which I
believe is now a Wiki.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email