IETF conflict review for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct
conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Comment (2015-06-24 for -00)
No email
send info
Just a small comment - having been on the systers list, there's frequently been an appeal to think of and
nominate qualified women candidates.  I don't recall anything specific about 2013 or an experiment.

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Barry Leiba Yes

Comment (2015-06-17 for -00)
No email
send info
In the introduction, the mention of the anti-harassment policy in the same paragraph as the systers' diversity experiment makes one feel that they're related, or at least that the anti-harassment policy is directly related to the diversity discussions.  It is not, and it would be better if it were clearer that it's mentioned here with respect to behaviour, not with respect to diversity.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-25 for -00)
No email
send info
Sect 1, the comment about 'engineering' female candidates, I think I would probably use a different word than engineering. Maybe "effort to find female candidates' would be closer to what I saw.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-23 for -00)
No email
send info
I would like to discuss this point with the IESG.

The write up rightly says for this ISE document: "Please note that the draft does not claim to represent a consensus of any community."

I looked through the list of ISE publications for the last couple of years (https://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/ise/), and I found none that deals with culture, way of working at the IETF, diversity, code of conduct, harassment, etc. such as this document.
A search for any of those keywords would end up with this document, and this document might easily be confused with a consensus based type of documents, like the TAO (https://www.ietf.org/tao.html). Especially for newcomers, who don't get get what ISE is. Personally, it took me years of IETF experience to know ("care" is probably a better verb) what the differences between RFC types were.

I see "The topic has received recent discussion in the IETF, and the document represents the authors' assessments and recommendations about it, in the belief that it constructive for the IETF and that it is consonant with at least some of the IETF community's participants.", but this sentence is kind of hidden at the end of section 1.

Either that sentence should be first in the introduction.
Alternatively, and this is my preferred option, an IESG note should be introduced at the beginning of the document, stressing that document does not claim to represent a consensus of any community.

In addition, even if that would be a difficult task, it would be beneficial to have a consensus-based document on this topic.

============
EDITORIAL:
Confused by the past and present tense mixes in section 1, §3 and §4
Is your point that:

OLD: Aggressive and even hostile discussion behavior is
   quite common. 

NEW: Aggressive and even hostile discussion behavior was
   quite common. 

And that now, because of/thanks to the diversity, the community has been behaving?
Personally, I believe that the IETF community is way less aggressive than before in its way of communicating

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-24 for -00)
No email
send info
Thanks for your work on this draft, the topic is important and we do need to see continual improvements.

Thanks for agreeing to address Barry's suggestion to add a space before the Systers discussion, I agree that will be helpful.

Section 1:
I agree with Benoit that the behavior has gotten better and the tense used in section 1 should be adjusted.  Hawaii was a very good meeting.
   "Aggressive and even hostile discussion behavior is
   quite common. "

   "Still there is evidence and perception of selection
   bias, beyond this."  etc.

The rest of this section doesn't ack recent changes and reads as if there has been no change.  I've witnessed a few cases of people being called out on their behavior and then modifying their behavior, not admonishing the person who called them out.  I think this is becoming the norm with less behavior to call out.

We've had 2 noncoms since the mentioned experiment in 2013, where I think we did have fair decisions.  The noncoms incorporated practices to reduce bias in the candidate review process that included measures such as leaving identifying information off of sections of the submitted information on candidates.  Without the information on this and other efforts, the draft is not up-to-date and should reflect that.

Moving onto section 2 and beyond, there is a lot of good content, slanted by the author's views (which is fine).  The draft is the opinion of the authors, and not a consensus document, so I will refrain from debating any of my perceptions of events.  

I didn't see any mention of ADs helping with diversity.  Maybe it doesn't belong in this draft, but there are significant effort/thought that goes into WG chair selection and identifying individuals who might be future chairs/ADs.  Many of us take the time to think about and mentor or assist others to move into these roles through coaching and providing opportunities for growth.  We do look for diversity opportunities as well.

I would have gotten my comments out sooner, but travel has been hectic.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection