Re: [irtf-discuss] I-D Action: draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-00.txt

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 28 December 2023 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4189C151531 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:10:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.705
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-h_XU8aEUMX for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE1DC14F6AA for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.0.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 3BSGA3a9027669 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:10:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1703779839; x=1703866239; i=@elandsys.com; bh=6N//KB9Ore5VvRGtOGcrpNWgzk2ED4MDEtSHkIInqPg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=i3wVJjL+J8EhtCcDKz42UOz+fFc4rgdijTsf/ihGEDm3HkHJxWsV1aD/3F4lBppNa g9YA8D7q91nlBx+y92tozdJien1dFK0wfQFxjl/I4EyJN74dB4hIkjfDR7Rs0Z83Fa ycFz9sUFDuF8KJnLsKV26H9KpN82FqCvBKA7wAY8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20231228073302.0c92fd40@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 07:51:14 -0800
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EF05C50-2742-4140-A95D-42B2108C7B1B@csperkins.org>
References: <169807696671.8814.7919240260704168172@ietfa.amsl.com> <66F77DEF-78F1-4395-8D8B-034D861B3A38@csperkins.org> <ZTbWsXhRxOPXq9fc@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20231227094712.08da2570@elandnews.com> <3EF05C50-2742-4140-A95D-42B2108C7B1B@csperkins.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/dBfZcaCQePWB42lK3pg2Qie3EDk>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] I-D Action: draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-00.txt
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 16:10:57 -0000

Hi Colin,
At 02:21 AM 28-12-2023, Colin Perkins wrote:
>You did not quote my response to Toerless, where I said that IETF 
>code of conduct is mainly focussed on effective conduct of the 
>standards process. The overwhelming majority of its text is 
>therefore not applicable to the IRTF. Accordingly, I don't believe 
>it makes sense to base the IRTF code of conduct on it.

Sorry about not quoting your response.

>Points 1 and 2 from Section 2 of RFC 7154 have been expanded and 
>updated for inclusion in the IRTF code of conduct. Points 3 and 4 
>are IETF-specific.

As my opinion may be biased, I will leave it to you and everyone else 
to assess whether the text makes sense or not.

>As is about half of Section 2 (both the reporting chain if cases of 
>harassment occur and the way mailing lists are moderated differ 
>between IETF and IRTF).

I took a quick look at the existing policies [1].  The current 
guidance is to report concerns to the ombudsteam (please see first 
policy listed under "other policies").  May I ask why the reporting 
chain is being changed?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.irtf.org/policies/