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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,
At 10:04 07-11-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Some comments.
>
>1) I object to the change in the first sentence of the Introduction:
>
>"The work of the IETF relies on cooperation ..." has become
>"The work of the IETF relies on collaboration...".
>
>I really think that "cooperation" is a significantly better word.
>I want more than collaborators in the IETF (people who labor with
>me). I want a spirit of cooperation. Also, "collaborate" has one very
>negative meaning in English.
>
>(Please compare http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperate
>and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate.)

Thanks for pointing this out.  I forgot about the case where 
"collaboration" has a negative connotation.  I'll change the sentence to:

   The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a diverse range of
   people, ideas, and communication styles.

>2) In the item "4. Individuals are prepared to contribute to the ongoing
>work of the group", I quite understand why some text was considered
>objectionable and was deleted. But I think the the following text should
>not have been deleted:
>
>"Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
>schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
>The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and many
>questions would be better expressed on the list in the months that
>follow."
>
>I would probably tune the last part so that it reads"
>
>"Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
>schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
>The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and
>questions can be asked and answered on the list."

I'll comment as an individual.  This was a thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html 
The "not intended for the education of individuals" can be read in 
various ways.  I understand that there is a time constraint.  If 
there are five new persons, each taking one minute, at the microphone 
I see that as five new persons feeling comfortable to participate in 
the IETF.  One of the points in the slide at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld016.htm is 
"grow other people".  Is it worthwhile to spend the five minutes of a 
working group session on new participants?  My answer is yes.

At the end of the Technical Plenary there was a woman who came to the 
microphone to make a comment.  I was interested in hearing her 
opinion.  11% of the attendees at this week's meeting are new.  A 
quick look at the microphone line might show whether these attendees 
are causing problems.

>3) The Security Considerations say:
>
>"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not affect the security of the
>Internet in any way."
>
>I'm not so sure. Try this:
>
>"Guidelines about IETF conduct do not directly affect the security of the
>Internet."

Thanks, I'll go with the suggested text.

>(I thought about drafting some text about how misconduct could damage
>security, but I think that rat hole can be avoided in this particular
>document.)

Yes. :-)

>4) Appendix A: Reporting transgressions of the guidelines
>
>Maybe just add a hint about the ombudsperson?
>
>"At the time of writing, the IETF is putting in place an 
>anti-harassment policy
>and an ombudsperson to handle complaints."

I'll leave this one open and wait for more feedback.  Please note 
that I have read about the appeals.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy