[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis
From:       Hector Santos <hsantos () isdg ! net>
Date:       2013-08-31 21:50:41
Message-ID: 52226531.5010801 () isdg ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process, I 
get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going to 
be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due diligent 
engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews, including 
increasing conflict of interest concerns.

There is a lost of engineering diversity when there is a lack or lost 
of industry representation. Folks who shy away, turned off or 
excommunicated based on leveraging conduct policies, we get a behavior 
I call "Consensus by Osmosis" -- rough consensus, higher potential for 
appeals and huge LC debates.

Too much rough consensus conclusions left to the WGLC and IETF LC that 
should and can be worked out before hand.

Ideally, I would like to see new external "APPEAL-LIKE" paths 
("Instant Replay Timeouts viewed by people in the booths") to help, 
settle, minimize serious issues in a WG before WGLC and IETF LC begins.

Perhaps this draft should has some statements about what is expected 
of the project leaders in the area of processing participant inputs. 
I think the draft should also define or describe:

    - Participants
    - Individuals
    - Project Leaders  (AD, CHAIRS, EDITORS?)

Ideally, proper professional conduct should include an expectation the 
leaders will be not be ignoring participants, individuals, industry 
peers and vice versa, of course.

-- 
HLS

On 8/31/2013 3:58 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 11:02 31-08-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> It seems like this would be a good time for an update.  A few
>> comments:
>>
>> . I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
>>   granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
>>   may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
>>   made explicit.  One that really popped out at me while
>>   reading this is that we may need to be clearer that people
>>   are participating in the IETF as individuals and
>>   contributions are evaluated in that light
>
> Yes.
>
>> . I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior;
>>   that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough
>>   consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build
>>   consensus rather than to "win."
>
> As a quick reply, it may be possible to put that under Item 2 in
> Section 2.  My preference would be to pick a comment from Ted Lemon {1]:
>
>    "Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully
> contradicts your
>     own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they
> might be
>     correct in contradicting your position."
>
> and use the above to mention "sincere effort".
>
>> . I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of "violating
>>   guidelines
>
> I added that based on a comment from Lars Eggert [2].  The word
> "breach" may be more appropriate.  I should have used the word
> "consequences" for Appendix B.
>
>> . I think it was a good idea to remove text that could be
>>   discouraging to new participants.
>
> There was a comment from Lars Eggert [3]:
>
>    '"when you begin to participate in a WG, maybe approach the chairs or
>     longer-term participants in order get a view on whether the issues
>     you wish to discuss fit the current work of the group."
>     Rationale: I HAVE seen newcomers raise issues that were either
> outside
>     the scope, or raise them in ways that got them a bad reception, and a
>     little caution about how to get the best result is IMO good.'
>
> My preference is for that to be part of the Newcomers tutorial and/or
> the Tao instead of a guideline for conduct.
>
> At 11:15 31-08-2013, Phill wrote:
>> I think it would be useful to point out that there is a big
>> difference between getting a draft published as an RFC and getting
>> the proposal deployed.
>>
>> The point of the IETF process is that it provides an opportunity to
>> build the consensus necessary to deploy the proposal. The consensus
>> is the real product, the documents are secondary.
>
> It would be better to discuss the above as part of the tutorial material.
>
>> It is also the case that some consensus matters more than others. A
>> proposal cannot be deployed without the support of people who write
>> code and operate infrastructure that must be changed. So people who
>> work to effect a back room carve up that cuts those people out of
>> the process are wasting everyone's time
>
> Proposals which do not have the support of the people who write the
> code tend to be ignored by the people who write the code.
>
> At 11:15 31-08-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Might be worth referencing Pete Resnick's draft; at this point,
>> casting it as one person's 'exploration' of the concept might avoid
>> taking it as official, while still treating it as useful.
>
> My preference is to use "sincere effort".  I'll wait for Pete Resnick
> to argue why his draft should be referenced. :-)
>
>> By way of operationalizing the idea of discussing-to-build-consensus
>> might be emphasizing both explanation -- to help people understand a
>> view -- and modification -- to adjust the view based on feedback.
>
> I think that it would be good to have a discussion of that draft when
> Pete Resnick says that it is ready for discussion.
>
>> A characteristic of talking to win, rather than explore, is having a
>> very rigid manner of making comments, essentially only re-stating a
>> point.  By contrast, real discussion incorporates comments being
>> made, rather than merely seeking to refute them.
>
> The problem may be that it is not clear whether the point will be
> considered as valid.  There may be a view that restating a point is
> useful or else the point will be noticed.  In a long thread some
> points do get missed.  I'll mention an interesting comment:
>
>   "I almost always get at least some private responses, and they inflict
>    discomfort often enough for me to not enjoy this communication mode"
>
> It is not possible to have a real discussion if people do not feel
> comfortable to discuss.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81864.html
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00222.html
> 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00209.html
> 4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00243.html
>
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]