The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct'
(draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-07.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.
A URL
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF Guidelines for Conduct'
draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments
On 9/1/13, Eduardo A. Suárez esua...@fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar wrote:
What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a
mailing list someone's opinion is censored because misspell their
ideas or opinions.
I don't think that is unbearable, usually in communications between IP
At 23:15 31-08-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to
communicate clearly?
The new text is as follows:
Participants, particularly those with English as a first language, attempt
to accommodate the needs of other
On Sep 3, 2013 5:47 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At the other end someone who has a problem understanding what is being said
can contact the WG Chair or Area Director privately so that they can step
in and help.
Because there are communication problems every few minutes, this seems
S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At 23:15 31-08-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
attempt to
communicate clearly?
The new text is as follows:
Participants, particularly those with English as a first language,
attempt
to
Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with
English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of
other participants by
On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with
English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of
other participants by communicating clearly. Participants try to
accommodate
Hi,
Quoting Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com:
I always think the problem of not understanding a message in IETF is
not the fault of the transmitter, but it is the receiver's fault. The
receiver SHOULD make more efforts to understand, or send a reply to
request clarifications
Hi,
Quoting S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com:
The original phrasing is as follows:
English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
native language of many IETF participants. Native English
speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly and to limit
the use of
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt
to communicate clearly?
The new text is as follows:
Participants, particularly those with English as a first language, attempt
to accommodate the needs of other participants by communicating clearly.
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
attempt
to communicate clearly?
The new text is as follows:
Participants, particularly those with English as a first language,
attempt
to accommodate the needs of other
On 9/3/13 6:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the
text.
*Blame*?
I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
for non-native speakers to understand and I've been grateful when
it's been pointed out.
On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 17:07:02 Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/3/13 6:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the
text.
*Blame*?
I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
for non-native speakers to
On 9/3/13 6:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I agree that trying to figure things out is a net positive. What I want to
avoid is someone making excuses claiming that since they aren't a native
speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.
I'd like to think that we're going to retain
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 22:51:48 S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi William,
At 21:41 31-08-2013, William McCall wrote:
Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft
would imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however
inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and
On 8/31/13 10:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to
communicate clearly?
Yes, but ...
I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
avoid highly idiomatic or stylized language - English that is not
Hi Eduardo,
At 23:19 31-08-2013, Eduardo A. Suarez wrote:
I think both parties have to try to express clearly. Those who do not
have the English as their native language should also try to do so.
Agreed.
What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a
mailing list someone's
Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/13 10:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
attempt to
communicate clearly?
Yes, but ...
I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
avoid highly idiomatic
On 9/1/13, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hi Eduardo,
At 23:19 31-08-2013, Eduardo A. Suarez wrote:
I think both parties have to try to express clearly. Those who do not
have the English as their native language should also try to do so.
Agreed.
What is unbearable to me is that in
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
avoid highly idiomatic or stylized language - English that is not
taught to non-native speakers. It may be better to say something
along those lines,
On 9/1/2013 9:08 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think Scott has put this perfectly, and it's exactly right. The
main point is clear communication. Everything else is advice about
how to achieve that.
Both are needed. Especially for a topic like this.
That is, for each point, the principle or
Hi Eduardo,
At 08:44 01-09-2013, Eduardo A. Suárez wrote:
the problem is that when one is arguing against the opinion of another
person, it is very easy for the recipient to respond you do not write
well and I do not understand and so disqualify his opponent.
You do not write well is not a
On 02/09/2013 04:22, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/1/2013 9:08 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think Scott has put this perfectly, and it's exactly right. The
main point is clear communication. Everything else is advice about
how to achieve that.
Both are needed. Especially for a topic like this.
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
made explicit. One that really popped out
On Aug 31, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the
On 8/31/2013 11:02 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
. I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior;
that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough
consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build
consensus rather than to win.
+10.
Might be worth referencing
Pete, what is that draft waiting on before becoming an Informational RFC?
At 11:02 31-08-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process, I
get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going to
be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due diligent
engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews, including
increasing
Hi Hector,
At 14:50 31-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process,
I get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going
to be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due
diligent engineering discussions,
On 08/31/2013 09:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Lars Eggert made the following comment:
I actually WANT this draft to talk about the CONSEQUENCES (posting
rights
getting taken away, personal attendance made impossible, etc.) of not
following the code of conduct! I think that would be by
Hi William,
At 21:41 31-08-2013, William McCall wrote:
Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft
would imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however
inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and 2) use slang of
some nature (which is quite arbitrary). I'd
33 matches
Mail list logo
