IRTF Code of Conduct
draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-08

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct and RFC 9775, changed IRTF state to Published RFC)

IANA has reviewed draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-08 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

[Ballot comment]
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,

[Ballot comment]
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".

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
Just one, and I see that Mirja has raised it already, but I would call for it to be a correction: the para on uncredited use of AI tools seems overly restrictive. In particular, I suspect people use it as a tool, similar to any other, for writing and editing, and as such, asking for it to be credited seems unnecessary. IMO, as it stands, this recommendation is very likely to be ignored, so I would recommend removing it. Do we really care how text -- or even a research idea -- is generated as long as it is defensible and makes sense?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. It's important to have this written down!

I have two small comments:

1) In Section 3 it says concerns should "be raised with the Chair of the Internet Architecture Board". I think this should say "be raised with the Internet Architecture Board" to clarify that it is the whole IAB handling these concerns.

2) I would like to note that the section on use of automated systems in section 5 is more restrictive than other policies I know of. Usually these policies say that use of such tools only have to be acknowledges if it was a significant contribution. E.g. using such a system for spell checking or creating a first version of some text that then is largely and manually revised is okay without attribution.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.