diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7704.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7704.txt | 1011 |
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] + |