Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-08-20
03 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-crocker-diversity-conduct@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: UPDATED Results of IETF-conflict review …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-crocker-diversity-conduct@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: UPDATED Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-06

The IESG has completed a review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-06
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'An IETF with Much
Diversity and Professional Conduct'
as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2015-08-20
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2015-08-20
03 Amy Vezza Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2015-08-20
03 Cindy Morgan Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from Approved No Problem - announcement sent
2015-08-20
03 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt
2015-06-29
02 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-crocker-diversity-conduct@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-crocker-diversity-conduct@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-05

The IESG has completed a review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-05
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'An IETF with Much
Diversity and Professional Conduct'
as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG asks the ISE to add the following IESG statement to the
document:

"This document represents the opinion of its authors on this important
topic. The IESG agrees with the importance, and notes that the IETF
community and the IESG have been involved in the issues raised here since
at least 2013. The IESG is committed to working with the community to
provide a diverse, professional, and safe environment at the IETF."

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2015-06-29
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2015-06-29
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-06-29
02 Amy Vezza Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2015-06-25
02 Cindy Morgan Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2015-06-25
02 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct-02.txt
2015-06-25
01 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct-01.txt
2015-06-25
00 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Sect 1, the comment about 'engineering' female candidates, I think I would probably use a different word than engineering. Maybe "effort to find …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-06-25
00 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-06-24
00 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
Just a small comment - having been on the systers list, there's frequently been an appeal to think of and
nominate qualified women …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-06-24
00 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-06-24
00 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft, the topic is important and we do need to see continual improvements.

Thanks for agreeing to …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-06-24
00 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-06-24
00 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-06-24
00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-06-23
00 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-06-23
00 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2015-06-23
00 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
I would like to discuss this point with the IESG.

The write up rightly says for this ISE document: "Please note that the …
[Ballot comment]
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
2015-06-23
00 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2015-06-22
00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-06-19
00 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba New version available: conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct-00.txt
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba
2015-06-17
00 Barry Leiba Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2015-06-16
00 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-06-25
2015-06-15
00 Nevil Brownlee IETF conflict review requested