IETF Code of Conduct (was: RE: Physical violence (was: RE: ineffective use of meeting time))

[Bound, Jim]

Putting this up as we do IPR statements is a good idea, I suggest and
making it more public would be good.

But, this is not a persistent problem in groups I have been involved
with for 10 years but flare ups.  Having our code of conduct is good but
how is it enforced and where do you go if it is violated, or else you
can expect people to take matters into their own hands.  We should not
assume all subscribe to some form of values.  Tallys corner from the
60's proved that and resulted in valuing differences.  But some believe
eye for an eye is fine behavior and way of life, and we must value that
difference too.  But if someone gets poked in the eye and has recourse
maybe they won't poke the person back.  But today if someone starts with
you, you have no recourse either to accept it or blast them back.  I
realize some people have views that karma, religion, or just what goes
around comes around, etc etc. will work it all out, me I am not that
patient, and believe turning the other cheek is unhealthy view :--) But
if there is authority to go to and say "I think this person abused me"
then that's cool.  Also we don't want to get to sensitive, and I am not
advocating that either.

I recall in 1993 as example when I first really started reading IETF
mail lists Steve Deering was debating with someone and they said "Steve
you ignorant slut" blah blah blah.  I went up to Steve next I saw him
and said wow you can take a lot, where I come from that person would got
popped or something?  Steve pointed out to me it was a private joke from
Saturday night live and he was fine with it.  My point is we just need
to be careful that is not the case.

Also NO Political Commentary at the IETF about any nation or any
leaders.  This is not good and it occasionally happens.  The IETF is not
the place for it.  Not even inuendos.  I am not talking about private
hallway conversations but formal meetings.  If we let one do it then we
must let another respond and pretty soon it can get ugly.  Not good it
should be in the code of conduct.

Another addition to this that would be good is state up front when one
is doing a "subjective" interpretion of someones position.  Some hang
out and know each other pretty well and can assume "something"
especially if they are friends.  Using my self as example I can't handle
the IETF at all socially except for the technical work and have no use
at all for the social aspects except for a few people.  Many reasons for
that, but we all must work together, objectivity is key.  One solution
to objectivity is to understand each others assumptions regarding a
technical discussion.  This gets back to my other mail where we must
state assumptions in our drafts.  This gets them discussed.  It also
keeps the effort focused and I think helps avoid disagreements, which
prevents flare ups, which prevents bad conduct by anyones standards, and
it also creates  sound basis for technical discussion and if necessary
technical compromise in the WG.

I have heard Radia's diatribe and discourse on this and it would be
nice, but it won't work.  Using the base Mike O'Dell did is a good start
but needs more work, and I suggested it to Mike as one person back then.
All organizations have them it is no blemish to the IETF to have one at
all.  Even Biker clubs I know have a code of conduct.

Anyone who threatens anyone with physical violence in the IETF forum
should be fined or something.  I have never seen this either and I would
notice it, as I have seen a lot of it out of the IETF, and avoid it very
well.  But, I also fear that some in our community consider loud being
violent and that is not the case (not that loud is good).  For example
once I heard someone say that was a "violent" response.  I was there and
gently pointed out it wasn't really it was a strong emotional visceral
response to you, viloence is if they hit you with a chair in the head.
So we need to be careful with that one. There is not violence in the
IETF that I have ever seen. It concerns me that someone stated this?

Sleeping in meetings.  This is very rude.  I don't care I guess.  But if
they snore its pretty bad.  And if they did not read the spec it is just
horrible :--)

Regards,
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 5:24 PM
>To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Subject: IETF Code of Conduct (was: RE: Physical violence 
>(was: RE: ineffective use of meeting time))
>
>
>Thanks, Rob, for reminding us about Radia's presentation.
>
>If we're settling into a "one Minneapolis meeting per year" 
>cycle, maybe we could ask Radia to present it whenever we meet 
>in Minneapolis?
>
>- I'm also thinking it would be an interesting thing to add to 
>the WG Chair training, and to the WG Chair resource page (now 
>available from the main IETF page, check it out)
>
>- The other thought that danced through my mind was, "whatever 
>happened to the IETF Code of Conduct?" - the longest-lived 
>expired Internet Draft I encountered when I started paying 
>attention to the way the IETF worked.
>
>According to 
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf->announce/Current/msg14445.html,
>we actually DO have a BCP on "IETF Guidelines for Conduct" - 
>RFC3184/BCP0054
>
>- has anyone read it lately?
>
>- is it mentioned in the IETF working group chair training?
>
>- is it mentioned in the IETF newcomer's training?
>
>Spencer...
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your 
>desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
>