[irtf-discuss] Re: Last call: IRTF Code of Conduct

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> writes:

> The IRSG is proposing that the IRTF adopt the code of conduct
> described in draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct.

Thanks for both writing this document and posting it (and to everyone else that has helped contribute toward it).  I think it's important to spell out these concerns/topics and look forward to it being published.

Having said that (you knew it was coming), some thoughts/issues/nits are below.  Note that I have not read any of the other comments, as I always try to do a full independent review in advance of reading other people's discussion topics.

[abstract and section 1]

- I understand the point behind putting "continue" in "the IRTF will continue to strive", but I'm not sure it's needed.  If it's just continuing, then it could be argued the document isn't needed.  How about something along the lines of "this document formally codifies the code of conduct that has made the IRTF successful in encourages broad participation, ..."

[section 2]

- For "Harassment is unwelcome, hostile, or intimidating behaviour...""

  I would suggest adding "Harassment *is defined* as unwelcome, hostile or ..."

- It would be good to explicitly list virtual meetings:

  "... other events, mailing lists, *virtual meetings*, or other online forums"

- For "Participants must follow the IETF anti-harassment policy..."

  I struggled a bit with this statement.  Obviously, we want it.  But it makes the document a little bit less clear as to why it's needed.  I'd actually suggest moving this sentence up to the introduction and then specifically referring to section 7 for where differences are spelled out.  TL;DR: it's important to clearly state that both the IETF code and this code and that the differences are spelled out in 7.

- "Research Group Chair or the IRTF Chair, or with the Ombudsteam" -> "Research Group Chair, the IRTF Chair, or with the Ombudsteam"

  (suggest dropping the first or)

- "... or after consultation with the IRTF Chair by permanently suspending ..."

  It is not clear from the sentence who is making the final call.  Is the IRTF Chair's approval required, or "I just talked with them and they disagreed but I'm banning you anyway".  I'd suggest that it should explicit require IRTF chair approval for a permanent ban.

- "be raised with the Chair of the [IAB]" - This seems also slightly under-specified.  I'd think the IAB chair should also consult with the full IAB to make appeal decisions.

[section 3]

- "Participants are reminded that reading, writing, and conversing in a language where one is not a native speaker may be difficult, and to treat those doing so with grace if they do so imperfectly."

  Suggest: Reading, writing, and conversing in a language where one is not a native speaker may be difficult, and IRTP participants should treat those doing so with grace and understanding.

- For makeing "other materials accessible to those with impaired vision or disabilities", it would be good to have a reference to a resource here.  Supposedly a new one may be published soon that you can point to, though I'm sure there are others that could be used as well.

- suggest: "what was meant" -> "when necessary"

[section 4]

- "...the IRTF may take action against authors..."

  I'm not sure what to do here.  I agree that, obviously, plagiarism [etc] would be bad.  But I'm not sure what actions the IRTF can do other than to unpublish works, etc?  The IRTF is not a formal body that can "sue" or other external actions.  So we should probably list the specific actions that can be taken by the IRTF, such as unpublishing presentations, drafts, and banning participants from future participation?

- A new thought for the end of the section: When IRTF document authors are republishing portions of other works of theirs, they must request and receive permission from their co-authors before publishing similar works through the IRTF.

  (not a perfect sentence, but the point I'm trying to make is that if I write an ID based on work from 3 past published papers with 9 other authors, I'd better get their permission to republish elements).  This is slightly different than citing (IMHO).

- It might be good to define what "IRTF systems" are.

Sorry for the long list.  Note that I don't think any of these are absolute show-stoppers IMHO, so I leave these thoughts to the consensus of the wider group(s).

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI