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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Dated : 06.11.2013

Is draft title guide of interaction or is it principles of conduct or is it
for only personal interactions?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

More comments related may be added.

AB