Subject: [spfbis] WG management

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:07:05 -0500

Dear colleagues,

Our AD (Pete), SM and I had a chat about ensuring that this Working
Group stays focussed and on-charter.  I'm summarizing for the list.
I'm sure they'll correct me if I fail to make anything clear.

This WG has, to its great advantage, a tightly-scoped charter and
clear tasks.  I know that we, all of us, are keen to bring the work to
a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.  At the same time, we are all
aware that we are discussing a contentious topic, that there were some
very strong passions about the topic in the past, and that there
remain both strong arguments and strong feelings about topic.

The IETF has open processes and an open culture.  Moreover, decisions
are supposed to be taken (or at least explicitly ratified) on the
mailing list.  This all means that anyone can participate just by
joining the list; they often do, and otherwise have little interaction
with the IETF or the people who participate in it frequently.  That
brings the great benefit of ensuring that every relevant perspective
and talent may be brought to bear on a hard problem.  It also brings a
cost, because participants must discipline themselves to be measured
in what they say, to be even-handed and fair, and not to drift
off-topic.  Sometimes people don't do one (or all) of these things,
and behaviour on the list (or even in a face to face meeting) becomes
boorish or hostile.  There is, of course, more than one way to exhibit
that behaviour, but whether it is outright maliciousness or snide
condescension, it is not acceptable in this WG.

As Chris Lewis said on another list recently, "Anyone can have a bad
day and fail in one way or the other."  I'd hate to count how many
times I have had such a day.  But as Chris equally noted, consistent
patterns of bad behaviour are not to be tolerated from any WG
participant.  SM and I are determined to ensure that this WG conduct
itself in a civilized, though no less rigorous, way.

We intend to use the available issue tracker as much as possible in
order to keep discussion on a given issue as tightly focussed as
possible.  We encourage participants to govern themselves as much as
possible, and particularly suggest that if you feel strongly when
composing a mail you might want to wait a few minutes and re-read your
remarks before sending them.  Put yourself in the other person's
shoes, and try to understand another's point of view before dismissing
it rudely.  Remember, also, that your interlocutor might not be a
long-time participant in the IETF and might not recognize that you're
merely having a bad day; or equally that your interlocutor might not
be familiar with something you know, and that it therefore is your
responsibility to present your evidence clearly, concisely,
completely, and once.  Finally, it's important to remember that
sometimes others just disagree with you; "rough consensus" means that
your views might be rejected by everyone else, and in that case you
need to accede gracefully.  This is all just a reminder of things we
all already know.

At the same time, SM and I draw to your attention RFC 2418
(particularly section 3.3) and RFC 3834 (particularly section 2).
We'd hate to be in the position of having to exercise any of the more
draconian procedures, and we thank you in advance for not causing that
to happen. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:37:05 -0800

> day and fail in one way or the other."  I'd hate to count how many

Andrew,

Welcome and good luck.  Glad to see the substance of your message.

Chris' postings was a formal notification to the Repute working grooup.  I put 
it up on the wiki for that working group:

    <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/repute/trac/wiki>

It might be worth considering development of standard language for working 
groups to use.  (The draft we wrote for Repute had that goal, but I've no doubt 
it needs modification.)

We have a "Note Well" system with respect to policies, procedures and 
notification of IPR issues.  We probably ought to develop the same thing for 
participation rules.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:58:47 -0500

Hi Dave,

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:37:05PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> It might be worth considering development of standard language for
> working groups to use.

It might be, yes, and I think it would be an excellent idea to
pursue.  I'm not sure what list to use for it, although I am sure that
it's not this one :-)

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]