doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1011 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7704.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7704.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22aba3f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7704.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1011 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Independent Submission                                        D. Crocker
+Request for Comments: 7704                   Brandenburg InternetWorking
+Category: Informational                                         N. Clark
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                       Pavonis Consulting
+                                                           November 2015
+
+
+          An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional Conduct
+
+Abstract
+
+   The process of producing today's Internet technologies through a
+   culture of open participation and diverse collaboration has proved
+   strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among
+   standards organizations.  During the early years of the IETF and its
+   antecedent, participation was almost entirely composed of a small
+   group of well-funded, American, white, male technicians,
+   demonstrating a distinctive and challenging group dynamic, both in
+   management and in personal interactions.  In the case of the IETF,
+   interaction style can often contain singularly aggressive behavior,
+   often including singularly hostile tone and content.  Groups with
+   greater diversity make better decisions.  Obtaining meaningful
+   diversity requires more than generic good will and statements of
+   principle.  Many different behaviors can serve to reduce participant
+   diversity or participation diversity.  This document discusses IETF
+   participation in terms of the nature of diversity and practical
+   issues that can increase or decrease it.  The document represents the
+   authors' assessments and recommendations, following general
+   discussions of the issues in the IETF.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
+   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
+   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
+   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
+   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   2.  Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+     2.1.  Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+     2.2.  Harassment and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   3.  Constructive Participation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
+     3.1.  Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
+     3.2.  Engagement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
+     3.3.  Facilitation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
+     3.4.  Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
+     3.5.  IETF Track Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+     3.6.  Avoiding Distraction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+   4.  Responses to Unconstructive Participation . . . . . . . . . .  14
+   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
+   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
+     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
+     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
+   Acknowledgements . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
+   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document discusses IETF participation, in terms of the nature of
+   diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it.  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 is constructive for the IETF and that it is
+   consonant with at least some of the IETF community's participants.
+
+   The Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] grew out of a research
+   effort that was started in the late 1960s, with central funding by
+   the US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA,
+   later DARPA) employing a collection of research sites around the
+   United States, and including some participation by groups of the US
+   military.  The community was originally restricted to participation
+   by members of the funded research groups.  In the 1980s,
+   participation expanded to include projects funded by other agencies,
+   most notably the US National Science Foundation for its NSFNet
+   effort.  At around the time the IETF was created in its current form,
+   in the late 1980s, participation in the group became fully open,
+   permitting attendance by anyone, independent of funding, affiliation,
+   country of origin, or the like.
+
+   Beyond the obvious effects of the resulting technology that we now
+   enjoy, the process of producing today's Internet technologies through
+   a culture of open participation and diverse collaboration has proved
+   strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among
+   standards organizations.  This culture has been sustained across many
+   changes in participant origins, organizational structures, economic
+   cycles, and formal processes.  However, maintenance of the IETF's
+   effectiveness requires constant vigilance.  As new participants join
+   the IETF mix, it is increasingly easy for the IETF's operation to
+   gradually invoke models from other environments, which are more
+   established and more familiar, but often are less effective.
+
+   Historically, participation in the IETF and its antecedent was almost
+   entirely composed of a small group of well-funded, American, white,
+   male technicians.  No matter the intentions of the participants, such
+   a narrow demographic demonstrated a distinctive group dynamic, both
+   in management and in personal interactions, that persists into the
+   current IETF.  Aggressive and even hostile discussion behavior is
+   quite common.  In terms of management, the IETF can be significantly
+   in-bred, favoring selection of those who are already well-known.  Of
+   course, the pool of candidates from which selections are made suffer
+   classic limitations of diversity found in many engineering
+   environments.  Still, there is evidence and perception of selection
+   bias, beyond this.
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   In the case of the IETF, the style of interaction can often
+   demonstrate singularly aggressive behavior, including singularly
+   hostile tone and content.  In most professional venues, such behavior
+   is deemed highly unprofessional, or worse.  Within the IETF, such
+   behavior has had long-standing tolerance.  Criticizing someone's
+   hostility is dismissed by saying that's just the way they are, or
+   that someone else provoked it, or that the person is generally well-
+   intentioned.  Further, anyone expressing concern about the behavior
+   is typically admonished to be less sensitive; that is, a recipient of
+   an attack who then complains is often criticized or dismissed.
+
+   As the IETF opened its doors to participation by anyone, its
+   demographics have predictably moved towards much greater variety.
+   However, the group culture has not adapted to accommodate these
+   changes.  The aggressive debating style and the tolerance for
+   personal attacks can be extremely off-putting for participants from
+   more polite cultures.  And, the management selection processes can
+   tend to exclude some constituencies inappropriately.
+
+   Recently, members of an informal IETF women's interest group, called
+   "systers", organized a quiet experiment, putting forward a large
+   number of women candidates for management positions, through the
+   IETF's "NomCom" process.  NomCom is itself a potentially diverse
+   group of IETF participants, chosen at random from a pool of recent
+   meeting attendees who offer their services.  Hence, its problematic
+   choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen as reflecting IETF
+   culture generally.
+
+   Over the years, some women have been chosen for IETF positions as
+   authors, working group chairs, area directors, Internet Architecture
+   Board [IAB] members, and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
+   [IAOC] members.  However, the results of the systers experiment were
+   not encouraging.  In spite of their recruiting a disproportionately
+   high number of female candidates, not a single one was selected.
+   Although any one candidate might be rejected for entirely legitimate
+   reasons, a pattern of rejection this consistent suggested an
+   organizational bias.  The results were presented at an IETF plenary,
+   and they engendered significant IETF soul-searching, as well as
+   creation of a group to consider diversity issues for the IETF
+   [Div-DT] [Div-Discuss].
+
+   Other activities around that same time also engendered IETF
+   consideration of unacceptable behaviors, generally classed as
+   harassment.  This resulted in the IESG's issuing a formal IETF anti-
+   harassment policy [Anti-Harass].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   Changing an organization's culture is difficult and requires not only
+   commitment to the underlying principles, but also vigilant and
+   sustained effort.  The IESG has taken essential first steps.  What is
+   needed is going beyond the position papers and expression of ideals,
+   into continuing education of the entire community, and immediate and
+   substantive response to unacceptable behaviors.
+
+2.  Concerns
+
+2.1.  Diversity
+
+   Diversity concerns the variability of a group's composition.  It can
+   reasonably touch every conceivable participant attribute.  It
+   includes task-related attributes, such as knowledge and experience,
+   as well as the usual range of "identified class" attributes,
+   including race, creed, color, religion, gender and sexual
+   orientation, but also extends to all manner of beliefs, behaviors,
+   experiences, preferences, and economic status.
+
+   The factors affecting the quality of group decision-making are
+   complex and subtle, and are not subject to precise specification.
+   Nevertheless, in broad terms, groups with greater diversity make
+   better decisions [Kellogg].  They perform better at diverse tasks
+   both in terms of quantity and quality, and a great deal of research
+   has found that heterogeneity often acts as a conduit for ideas and
+   innovation [WiseCrowd] [Horowitz] [Stahl] [Joshi].  The implicit
+   assumptions of one participant might not be considerations for
+   another and might even be unknown by still others.  And, different
+   participants can bring different bases of knowledge and different
+   styles of analysis.  People with the same background and experience
+   will all too readily bring the same ideas forward and subject them to
+   the same analysis, thus diminishing the likelihood for new ideas and
+   methods to emerge, or underlying problems to be noted.
+
+   However, a desire to diligently attend to group diversity often leads
+   to mechanical, statistical efforts to ensure representation by every
+   identified constituency.  For smaller populations, like the IETF and
+   especially for its small management teams, this approach is
+   counterproductive.  First, it is not possible to identify every
+   single constituency that might be relevant.  Second, the group size
+   does not permit representation by every group.  Consequently, in
+   practical terms, legitimate representation of diversity only requires
+   meaningful variety, not slavish bookkeeping.  In addition, without
+   care, it can lead to the negative effects of diversity where
+   decision-making is slowed, interaction decreased, and conflict
+   increased [Horowitz].
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   Pragmatically, then, concern for diversity merely requires serious
+   attention to satisfying two requirements:
+
+      Participant Diversity:   Decisions about who is allowed into the
+         group require ensuring that the selection process encourages
+         varying attributes among members.  That is, this concerns
+         variety in group demographics.
+
+      Participation Diversity:   Achieving effective generation of ideas
+         and reviews within a group requires ensuring that its
+         discussions encourage constructive participation by all members
+         and that the views of each member are considered seriously.
+         This, then, concerns group dynamics.
+
+   In other words, look for real variety in group composition and real
+   variety in participant discussion.  This will identify a greater
+   variety of possible and practical solutions.
+
+   Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic good will
+   and statements of principle.  The challenges, here, are to actively:
+
+   o  Encourage constructive diversity
+
+   o  Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to reduce diversity
+
+   o  Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to diminish the benefits
+      of diversity
+
+   o  Remove those dynamics when they still occur
+
+   It also requires education about the practicalities of diversity in
+   an open engineering environment, and it requires organizational
+   processes that regularly consider what effect each decision might
+   have on diversity.
+
+   Examples abound:
+
+   o  Formally, an IETF working group makes its decisions on its mailing
+      list.  Since anyone can join the list, anyone with access to the
+      Internet can participate.  However, working groups also have
+      sessions at the thrice-annual IETF face-to-face meetings and might
+      also hold interim meetings, which are face to face, by telephone,
+      or by video conference.  Attendance at these can be challenging.
+      Getting to a face-to-face meeting costs a great deal of money and
+      time; remote participation often incurs time-shifting that
+      includes very early or very late hours.  So, increased working
+      group reliance on meetings tends to exclude those with less
+      funding or less travel time or more structured work schedules.
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   o  Vigorous advocacy for a strongly held technical preference is
+      common in engineering communities.  Of course it can be healthy,
+      since strong support is necessary to promote success of the work.
+      However, in the IETF this can be manifest in two ways that are
+      problematic.  One is a personal style that is overly aggressive
+      and serves to intimidate, and hence unreasonably gag, those with
+      other views.  The other is a group style that prematurely embraces
+      a choice and does not permit a fair hearing for alternatives.
+
+   o  Predictably, engineers value engineering skills.  When the task is
+      engineering, this is entirely appropriate.  However, many of the
+      IETF's activities, in support of its engineering efforts, are less
+      about engineering and more about human and organizational
+      processes.  These require very different skills.  To the extent
+      that participants in those processes are primarily considered in
+      terms of their engineering prowess, those who are instead stronger
+      in other, relevant skills will be undervalued, and the diversity
+      of expertise that the IETF needs will be lost.
+
+   o  IETF standards are meant to be read, understood, and implemented
+      by people who were not part of the working group process.  The
+      gist of the standards also often needs to be read by managers and
+      operators who are not engineers.  IETF specifications enjoy quite
+      a bit of stylistic freedom to contain pedagogy, in the service of
+      these audience goals.  However, the additional effort to be
+      instructional is significant, and active participants who already
+      understand and embrace the technical details often decline from
+      making that effort.  Worse, that effort is also needed during the
+      specification development effort, since many participants might
+      lack the background or superior insight needed to appreciate what
+      is being specified.  Yet the IETF's mantra for "rough consensus"
+      is exactly about the need to recruit support.  In fact, the
+      process of "educating" others often uncovers issues that have been
+      missed.
+
+2.2.  Harassment and Bullying
+
+   Many different behaviors can serve to reduce participant diversity or
+   participation diversity.  One class of efforts is based on overt
+   actions to marginalize certain participants by intimidating them into
+   silence or departure.  Intimidation efforts divide into two styles
+   warranting distinction.  One is harassment, which pertains to biased
+   treatment of demographic classes.  A number of identified classes are
+   usually protected by law, and community understanding that such
+   biased behavior cannot be tolerated has progressively improved.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   Other intimidation efforts are tailored to targeted individuals and
+   are generally labeled bullying [Har-Bul] [Workplace] [Signs]
+   [Escalated] [Prevention].  The nature and extent of bullying in the
+   workplace is widely underestimated, misunderstood, and mishandled.
+   It is described as follows in a WikiHow article [wikiHow]:
+
+      ...[B]ehavior directed at an employee that is intended to degrade,
+      humiliate, embarrass, or otherwise undermine their performance...
+      [T]he sure signs of a bully that signify more than a simple
+      misunderstanding or personal disagreement... might include:
+
+      *  Shouting, whether in private, in front of colleagues, or in
+         front of customers
+
+      *  Name-calling
+
+      *  Belittling or disrespectful comments
+
+      *  Excessive monitoring, criticizing, or nitpicking someone's work
+
+      *  Deliberately overloading someone with work
+
+      *  Undermining someone's work by setting them up to fail
+
+      *  Purposefully withholding information needed to perform a job
+         efficiently
+
+      *  Actively excluding someone from normal workplace/staff room
+         conversations and making someone feel unwelcome
+
+   In addition, the Tim Field Foundation [Bully-Ser] lists the traits of
+   a "serial bully", paraphrased below:
+
+   o  Jekyll and Hyde nature -- Dr Jekyll is 'charming' and
+      'charismatic'; 'Hyde' is 'evil'
+
+   o  Exploits the trust and needs of organizations and individuals, for
+      personal gain
+
+   o  Convincing liar -- Makes up anything to fit their needs at that
+      moment
+
+   o  Damages the health and reputations of organizations and
+      individuals
+
+   o  Reacts to criticism with Denial, Retaliation, Feigned Victimhood
+      [Defensive], [MB-Misuse]
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   o  Blames victims
+
+   o  Apparently immune from disciplinary action
+
+   o  Moves to a new target when the present one burns out
+
+   Whether directed at classes or individuals, intimidation methods used
+   can:
+
+   o  Seem relatively passive, such as consistently ignoring a member
+
+   o  Seem mild, such as with a quiet tone or language of condescension
+
+   o  Be quite active, such as aggressively attacking what is said by
+      the participant
+
+   o  Be disingenuous, masking attacks in a passive-aggressive style
+
+   If tolerated by others, and especially by those managing the group,
+   these methods create a hostile work environment [Dealing].
+
+      When public harassment or bullying is tolerated, the hostile
+      environment is not only for the person directly subject to the
+      attacks.
+
+      The harassment also serves to intimidate others who observe that
+      it is tolerated.  It teaches them that misbehaviors will not be
+      held accountable.
+
+   The IETF's Anti-Harassment Policy [Anti-Harass] uses a single term to
+   cover the classic harassment of identified constituencies, as well as
+   the targeted behavior of bullying.  The policy's text is therefore
+   comprehensive, defining unacceptable behavior as "unwelcome hostile
+   or intimidating behavior."  Further, it declares: "Harassment of this
+   sort will not be tolerated in the IETF."  An avenue for seeking
+   remedy when harassment occurs is specified as a designated
+   Ombudsperson.
+
+   Unified handling of bullying and harassment is exemplified in the
+   policies of many different organizations, notably including those
+   with widely varying membership, even to the point of open,
+   international participation, similar to that of the IETF.  Examples
+   include:
+
+      Scouts Canada:
+         Bullying/Harassment Policy [SC-Cybul]
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+      IEEE:
+         Code of Conduct [IEEE-Cybul]
+
+      Facebook:
+         Community Standards [F-H-Cybul]
+
+      LinkedIn:
+         "Be Nice" in LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines
+         [L-H-Cybul]
+
+      YouTube:
+         Harassment and cyberbullying [Y-H-Cybul]
+
+      NetHui:
+         Kaupapa and code of conduct [NetHui]
+
+      GeekFeminism:
+         Conference anti-harassment: Adopting a policy [GeekFeminism]
+
+   In fact, there is a view that harassment is merely a form of
+   bullying, given the same goal of undermining participation by the
+   target:
+
+      Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature...
+      [Wiki-SexHarass]
+
+   The IETF has a long history of tolerating aggressive and even hostile
+   behavior by participants.  So, this policy signals a formal and
+   welcome change.  The obvious challenge is to make the change real,
+   moving the IETF from a culture that tolerates -- or even encourages
+   -- interpersonal misbehaviors to one that provides a safe,
+   professional, and productive haven for its increasingly diverse
+   community.
+
+   Here again, examples abound, to the present:
+
+   o  Amongst long-time colleagues, acceptable interpersonal style can
+      be whatever the colleagues want, even though it might look quite
+      off-putting to an observer.  The problem occurs when an IETF
+      participant engages in such behaviors with, or in the presence of,
+      others who have not agreed to the social contract of that
+      relationship style and might not even understand it.  For these
+      others, the behavior can be extremely alienating, creating a
+      disincentive against participation.  Yet, in the IETF, it is
+      common for participants to feel entitled to behave in overly
+      familiar or aggressive or even hostile fashion that might be
+      acceptable amongst colleagues, but is destructive with strangers.
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   o  The instant a comment is made that concerns any attribute of a
+      speaker, such as their motives, the nature of their employer, or
+      the quality of their participation style, the interaction has
+      moved away from technical evaluation.  In many cultures, all such
+      utterances are intimidating or offensive.  In an open,
+      professional participation environment, they therefore cannot be
+      permitted.
+
+   o  As a matter of personal style or momentary enthusiasm, it is easy
+      to indulge in condescending or dismissive commentary about
+      someone's statements.  As a discussion technique, its function is
+      to attempt to reduce the target's influence on the group.  Whether
+      nonverbal (such as rolling one's eyes), paternalistic (such as
+      noting the target's naivete), or overtly hostile (such as
+      impugning the target's motives), it is an attempt to marginalize
+      the person rather than focus on the merits of what they are
+      saying.  It constitutes harassment or bullying.
+
+3.  Constructive Participation
+
+   The goal of open, diverse participation requires explicit and ongoing
+   organizational effort, concerning group access, engagement, and
+   facilitation.
+
+3.1.  Access
+
+   Aiding participants with access to IETF materials and discussions
+   means that it is easy for them to:
+
+   o  Know what exists
+
+   o  Find what is of interest
+
+   o  Retrieve documents or gain access to discussions
+
+   o  Be able to understand the content
+
+   After materials and discussions are located, the primary means of
+   making it easy to access the substance of the work is for statements
+   to be made in language that is clear and explanatory.  Writers and
+   speakers need to carefully consider the likely audience and package
+   statements accordingly.  This often means taking a more tutorial
+   approach than one might naturally choose.  In speech, it means
+   speaking more deliberately, a bit more clearly and a bit more slowly
+   than needed with close collaborators.  When language is cryptic or
+   filled with linguistic idiosyncrasies and when speech is too fast, it
+   is dramatically less accessible to a diverse audience.
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+3.2.  Engagement
+
+   Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse
+   contribution for further development.  Engagement means that it is
+   easy for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously
+   through constructive interaction.
+
+   Within the IETF, the most common challenge is choosing how to respond
+   to comments.  The essence of the IETF is making proposals and
+   offering comments on proposals; disagreement is common and often
+   healthy, depending upon the manner in which disagreement is pursued.
+
+3.3.  Facilitation
+
+   In order to obtain the best technology, the best ideas need first to
+   be harvested.  Processes that promote free-ranging discussion, tease
+   out new ideas, and tackle concerns should be promoted.  This will
+   also run to:
+
+   o  Encouraging contributions from timid speakers
+
+   o  Showing warmth for new contributors
+
+   o  Preventing dominance by, or blind deference to, those perceived as
+      the more senior and authoritative contributors
+
+   o  Actively shutting down derogatory styles
+
+   It is important that participants be facilitated in tendering their
+   own ideas readily so that innovation thrives.
+
+3.4.  Balance
+
+   There is the larger challenge of finding balance between efforts to
+   facilitate diversity versus efforts to achieve work goals.  Efforts
+   to be inclusive include a degree of tutorial assistance for new
+   participants.  They also include some tolerance for participants who
+   are less efficient at doing the work.  Further, not everyone is
+   capable of being constructive, and the burdens of accommodating such
+   folk can easily become onerous.
+
+   As an example, there can be tradeoffs with meeting agendas.  There is
+   common pushback on having working group meetings be a succession of
+   presentations.  For good efficiency, participants want to have just
+   enough presentation to frame a question, and then spend face-to-face
+   time in discussion.  However, "just enough presentation" does not
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   leave much room for tutorial commentary to aid those new to the
+   effort.  Meeting time is always too short, and the primary
+   requirement is to achieve forward progress.
+
+3.5.  IETF Track Record
+
+   The IETF's track record for making its technical documents openly
+   available is notably superb, as is its official policy of open
+   participation in mailing lists and meetings.  Its track record with
+   management and process documentation is more varied, partly because
+   these cover overhead functions, rather than being in the main line of
+   IETF work and, therefore, expertise.  So, they do not always get
+   diligent attention.  Factors include the inherent challenges in doing
+   management by engineers, as well as challenges in making management
+   and process documents usable for non-experts and non-native English
+   speakers.
+
+   On the surface, the IETF's track record for open access and
+   engagement therefore looks astonishingly good, since there is no
+   "membership", and anyone is permitted to join IETF mailing lists and
+   attend IETF meetings.  Indeed, for those with good funding, time for
+   travel, and skills at figuring out the IETF culture, the record
+   really does qualify as excellent.
+
+   However, very real challenges exist for those who have funding,
+   logistics, or language limitations.  In particular, these impede
+   attendance at meetings.  Another challenge is for those from more
+   polite cultures who are alienated by the style of aggressive debate
+   that is popular in the IETF.
+
+3.6.  Avoiding Distraction
+
+   For any one participant, some other participant's contributions might
+   be considered problematic, possibly having little or no value.
+   Worse, some contributions are in a style that excites a personal,
+   negative reaction.
+
+   The manner chosen for responding to such contributions dramatically
+   affects group productivity.  Attacking the speaker's style or motives
+   or credentials is not useful, and primarily serves to distract
+   discussion from matters of substance.  In the face of such challenges
+   and among the many possible ways to pursue constructive exchange,
+   guidance includes:
+
+   o  Ignore such contributions; perhaps someone else can produce a
+      productive exchange, but there is no requirement that anyone
+      respond.
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   o  Respond to the content, not the author; in the extreme, literally
+      ignore the author and merely address the group about the content.
+
+   o  Offer better content, including an explanation of the reasons it
+      is better.
+
+   The essential point here is that the way to have a constructive
+   exchange about substance is to focus on the substance.  The way to
+   avoid getting distracted is to ignore whatever is personal and
+   irrelevant to the substance.
+
+4.  Responses to Unconstructive Participation
+
+   Sometimes problematic participants cannot reasonably be ignored.
+   Their behavior is too disruptive, too offensive, or too damaging to
+   group exchange.  Any of us might have a moment of excess, but when
+   the behavior is too extreme or represents a pattern, it warrants
+   intervention.
+
+   A common view is that this should be pursued personally, but for such
+   cases, it rarely has much effect.  This is where IETF management
+   intervention is required.  The IETF now has a reasonably rich set of
+   policies concerning problematic behavior.  So, the requirement is
+   merely to exercise the policies diligently.  Depending on the
+   details, the working group chair, mailing list moderator,
+   Ombudsperson, or perhaps IETF Chair is the appropriate person to
+   contact [MlLists] [Anti-Harass].
+
+   The challenge, here, is for both management and the rest of the
+   community to collaborate in communicating that harassment and
+   bullying will not be tolerated.  The formal policies make that
+   declaration, but they have no meaning unless they are enforced.
+
+   Abusive behavior is easily extinguished.  All it takes is community
+   resolve.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends
+   upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for
+   collaborative development of technical documents.  More diverse
+   scrutiny leads to increased rigor, so the quality of technical
+   documents will potentially improve.  The potential for future legal
+   liability in the various jurisdictions within which the IETF operates
+   also indicates a need to act to reinforce behavioral policies with
+   specific attention to workplace safety.
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+6.  References
+
+6.1.  Normative References
+
+   [Anti-Harass]
+              IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013,
+              <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
+              ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>.
+
+   [MlLists]  IESG, "IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working
+              Group Mailing Lists", August 2000,
+              <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
+              moderated-lists.html>.
+
+6.2.  Informative References
+
+   [Bully-Ser]
+              Tim Field Foundation, "Introduction to the Serial Bully:
+              Serial Bully Traits", <http://bullyonline.org/workbully/
+              serial_introduction.htm>.
+
+   [Dealing]  Government of South Australia, "Dealing with Workplace
+              Bullying: A practical guide for employees", Interagency
+              Round Table on Workplace Bullying, South Australia, 2007,
+              <https://crana.org.au/uploads/pdfs/
+              SAgov_bullying_employees.pdf>.
+
+   [Defensive]
+              Bickham, I., "Defensive Communication",
+              <http://www.people-communicating.com/
+              defensive-communication.html>.
+
+   [Div-Discuss]
+              IETF, "Diversity Discussion List", <http://www.ietf.org/
+              mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html>.
+
+   [Div-DT]   IETF, "Diversity Design Team wiki", 2013,
+              <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/>.
+
+   [Escalated]
+              Namie, G., "Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility",
+              Ivey Business Journal 9B03TF09, November/December 2003.
+
+   [F-H-Cybul]
+              Facebook, "Community Standards", 2015,
+              <https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards>.
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   [GeekFeminism]
+              Geek Feminism Wiki, "Conference anti-harassment: Adopting
+              a policy", <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/
+              Conference_anti-harassment>.
+
+   [Har-Bul]  UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
+              "Harassment and bullying at work", January 2015,
+              <http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/
+              harassment-bullying-at-work.aspx>.
+
+   [Horowitz] Horwitz, S. and I. Horwitz, "The Effects of Team Diversity
+              on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team
+              Demography", Journal of Management, Vol. 33 (6),
+              p. 987-1015, DOI 10.1177/0149206307308587, December 2007.
+
+   [IAB]      "Internet Architecture Board", <https://www.iab.org/>.
+
+   [IAOC]     "IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)",
+              <https://iaoc.ietf.org/>.
+
+   [IEEE-Cybul]
+              IEEE, "IEEE CODE OF CONDUCT", June 2014,
+              <https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee_code_of_conduct.pdf>.
+
+   [IETF]     IETF, "The Internet Engineering Task Force",
+              <https://www.ietf.org/>.
+
+   [Joshi]    Joshi, A. and H. Roh, "The Role of Context in Work Team
+              Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review", Academy of
+              Management Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3, 599-627,
+              DOI 10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491, 2009,
+              <http://www.ilo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/download/
+              unterlagen-ws1415/josh-roh-2009.pdf>.
+
+   [Kellogg]  Kellogg Insight, "Better Decisions Through Diversity:
+              Heterogeneity can boost group performance", Kellogg School
+              of Management, Northwestern University, Oct 2010,
+              <http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/
+              better_decisions_through_diversity>.
+
+   [L-H-Cybul]
+              LinkedIn, "LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines",
+              2015,
+              <https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   [MB-Misuse]
+              Rachel Burger, R., "Three Common Ways Libertarians Misuse
+              Myers-Briggs Part 2: Misunderstanding the Feeling
+              Preference", July 2013, <http://thoughtsonliberty.com/
+              three-common-ways-libertarians-misuse-myers-briggs-part-2-
+              misunderstanding-the-feeling-preference>.
+
+   [NetHui]   InternetNZ, "Kaupapa and code of conduct", NetHui 2015,
+              <http://2015.nethui.nz/code-of-conduct>.
+
+   [Prevention]
+              WorkSafe Victoria, "Workplace bullying - prevention and
+              response", October 2012,
+              <http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/
+              pdf_file/0008/42893/WS_Bullying_Guide_Web2.pdf>.
+
+   [SC-Cybul] Scouts Canada, "Bullying/Harassment Policy", May 2012,
+              <http://www.scouts.ca/cys/
+              policy-bullying-and-harassment.pdf>.
+
+   [Signs]    Workplace Bullying Institute, "Employee Resource Council:
+              20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying", November 2013,
+              <http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/11/10/erc/>.
+
+   [Stahl]    Stahl, G., Maznevski, M., Voigt, A., and K. Jonsen,
+              "Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A
+              meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups",
+              Journal of International Business Studies 41, 690-709,
+              DOI 10.1057/jibs.2009.85, May 2010,
+              <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v41/n4/
+              full/jibs200985a.html>.
+
+   [Wiki-SexHarass]
+              Wikipedia, "Sexual harassment", November 2015,
+              <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/
+              index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&oldid=689426449>.
+
+   [wikiHow]  WikiHow, "How to Deal with Workplace Bullying and
+              Harassment", November 2015, <http://www.wikihow.com/
+              index.php?title=Deal-with-Workplace-Bullying-and-
+              Harassment&oldid=18828395>.
+
+   [WiseCrowd]
+              Wikipedia, "The Wisdom of Crowds", November 2015,
+              <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/
+              index.php?title=The_Wisdom_of_Crowds&oldid=689201384>.
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 7704                   Diversity & Conduct             November 2015
+
+
+   [Workplace]
+              "Workplace Bullying", YouTube video, 12:30, posted
+              by "QualiaSoup", February 2013,
+              <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80>.
+
+   [Y-H-Cybul]
+              Google, "Harassment and cyberbullying - YouTube Help",
+              2015, <https://support.google.com/youtube/
+              answer/2801920?hl=en&rd=1>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   This document was prompted by the organizational change, signaled
+   with the IESG's adoption of an anti-harassment policy for the IETF,
+   and a number of follow-on activities and discussions that ensued.  A
+   few individuals have offered thoughtful comments during private
+   discussions.
+
+   Comments on the original draft were provided by John Border and SM
+   (Subramanian Moonesamy).
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Dave Crocker
+   Brandenburg InternetWorking
+   675 Spruce Drive
+   Sunnyvale, CA  94086
+   United States
+
+   Phone: +1.408.246.8253
+   Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
+
+
+   Narelle Clark
+   Pavonis Consulting
+   C/- PO Box 1705
+   North Sydney, NSW  2059
+   Australia
+
+   Phone: +61 412297043
+   Email: narelle.clark@pavonis.com.au
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker & Clark               Informational                    [Page 18]
+