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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Abdussalam,
At 04:13 08-11-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>IMHO, that this document should be about guiding people that have
>feelings not about people of no feelings. The respect intention is
>very important but that needs remembering equality and fairness.
>Humans forget alot, so the document reminds us as guiding our
>inetraction/behavior.

I don't think that it is up to the draft to remind people not to be 
insensitive.  It is unlikely that people who are insensitive will 
change because of what is written in a document.

>Ok, that is good but what is the conduct? I think you mean personal
>conduct, so why not make the title: IETF Guidelines for Personal
>Conduct. Please adjust or reply,

I did a quick search on part of the existing title.  I did not find 
any occurrences of the word "personal".  Please note that I am 
responding to why the title is what it is and not why the title is 
not something else.

>Personal Conduct

Please refer to my previous comment.

>I know that, but it will miss the aim of the document if it does not
>make some guide principles to personal conduct. The conduct is about
>inter-action which is discussions and consensus, so the actions are
>inputs/documents/posts/consensus-sounds. So why you think the draft
>SHOULD not provide guides to conduct that is aiming for better
>interactions.

The definition of "conduct" is "the manner in which a person 
behaves".  Discussions and consensus are covered by the relevant 
process documents.  The draft is not about how to interact or discuss 
to reach consensus.

>The draft SHOULD not discriminate between f2f or remote inputs and
>actions, because the draft is about personal conduct in IETF. IETF is
>mostly remotely interactions.

I did not find any text in the draft which might encourage discrimination.

>Therefore, put in the title *personal conduct*. I support that the
>draft focuses about people's interactions only not machines/bodies
>interactions. That is why I mentioned before the important principle
>of *intention* (bodies have no intentions, because it can be a machine
>or system, systems have decisions and actions like us but no feelings
>or intentions) that the draft needs to introduce openly without
>avoiding.

Please see my comment near the beginning of this message about 
"personal conduct".

>I don't agree, the RFC2026 his more credit to management body or
>manager to control work flow very little for personal conflicts
>(RFC2026 does not solve many feelings issues), this RFC2026 is like a
>systematic practice not sensitive enough for best personal conduct
>practices. I mean fair and equal in many race, cultural and knowledge
>levels. Why you don't want to repeat the word if necessary even if it
>was said in all RFCs? IMHO, the document needs to represent the equal
>and fair in ALL personal inter-actions.

I took a quick look at RFC 2026 before typing this.  I found several 
occurrences of the word "fair" in the document.  I don't see a need 
to repeat what is already stated in another BCP.

>What about feeling decisions, as being friendly, or being ugly in
>interaction, or making behavior of ignoring, or example: saying my job
>is not to educate you, etc. Saying that is a decision and action, I
>think you should think about its relation to personal conduct.

There isn't any way for, for example, you to know that I am being 
friendly.  I can write a nicely worded message but that does not mean 
that I am being friendly.  It is up to the reader to determine 
whether this message contains platitudes, i.e. trite or banal remarks 
or statements, especially expressed as if it were original or significant.

If a person sends me the following reply: "my job is not to educate 
you", I would not ask the person to help me.

>It is understandable but not enough. It is like repeating what
>government organisations are writting in their principles of conduct.
>I am from Africa, and I reviewed the document, do you think my review
>is not important, only America reviewers you accept. I may not
>understood your point,

It would be politically inappropriate for me to say that your review 
is not important.  I could say that your review is very important; it 
would be a meaningless statement in my opinion.  The point is to get 
different readers to assess whether the draft is easy to understand.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy