Ballot for draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct
Yes
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this draft ready for publication in the IRTF stream?"
Just adding, this was very carefully developed and reviewed under Colin's editing. Really ready for publication, which is why there are so many yeses. Many issues were discussed during IRSG meetings early on,
Small typo ("IRTP") in Sec 4:
[...] and IRTP participants should treat those doing so with grace and understanding
This is a very good result. I still have two comments that may or may not be ignored: ## Minor > The IRTF sometimes organises meetings or activities that co-locate with events organised by others. These meetings or activities may need to follow the anti-harassment policy of the hosting event, which may differ from that of the IRTF. In such cases, the organisers of the IRTF meeting or activity should check with the IRTF Chair to confirm that the policy is acceptable and it should be made clear to participants what policy applies. Really? This seems to deserve an RFC 6919 keyword of "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)". (Of course we won't colocate with a venue that already is known to have problems in this area.) ## Editorial > They should be generous, give credit to others where it is due, and recognise that understanding advances through collaborative research efforts of many, rather than for the glory of a few. I need to read the sentence about three times to recognize that "understanding advances" is not about "understanding advances".
Thanks for this document. It's important to have this written down! Thanks for addressing my previous comments!
Thank you for this document, I think it's a great addition to the existing Anti-Harassment procedures. One editorial nit in Section 5: "They should be generous, give credit to others where it is due, and recognise that understanding advances through collaborative research efforts of many, rather than for the glory of a few." Should it be "rather than through the glory of a few"? Otherwise I'm not sure what "understanding advances for the glory of a few" means.
Fixed a minor typo: https://github.com/irtf-chair/code-of-coduct/pull/4
Thank you for this!
Thank you for this! I think this is helpful in fostering a more inclusive and supportive culture. I guess the following is a typo that would be caught during editorial, but I thought I'd point it out. In Sec. 4 Language and Imagery, the last sentence concludes with "...IRTP participants should treat those doing so with grace and understanding." Is IRTP a typo? Based on the context I'd expect IRTF.
Thank you for the discussions and the changes. I'm good with this doc now.
Thank you for this draft. All good except for a typo "IRTP" in Section 4.
A few editorial comments. Not sure if appropriate to share them here/now. Section 2. Rationale: the rationale for having a IRTF specific code of conduct could be enhanced and make more explicit what differences between IRTF and IETF will translate in differences in the respective codes of conduct. Section 3. Conduct: it is not fully clear who/What "the IRTF" is (IRSG, IRTF Chair, RGs, all...) and how to separate participants from "the IRTF": are participants also part of "the IRTF" or not. For harassment, why is "sexual" cited primarily and only. Other forms of harassment could be considered or generalized e.g. physical, moral, verbal or non-verbal, behavioral... Section 4. Language and Imagery: s/IRTP/IRTF (end of first paragraph). The section mixes different aspects not fully in-line with the title of the section. Maybe consider organizing or splitting into different sub-sections e.g. on accessibility of communication (support), on language barriers, understanding and attitude to overcome and communicate effectively with respectful and constructive behavior, on compliance of language and imagery... Section 5. Academic Integrity: suggest changing section title to "Research Integrity". I think the content applies broadly beyond the academic context (but maybe I am missing a nuance here). Section 6. Research Ethics: I think the RFC editor would catch this one: no need to capitalize "Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee". Section 7. Participation and Accessibility: if still possible to change the content, I would encourage "the IRTF" to be more assertive in expressing preference or support towards open forum, and considering the preferred, default mode for research groups, and that closed or limited fora must be justified and are exceptions.