Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of WikiStart

Jan 4, 2012, 5:23:57 PM (7 years ago)



  • WikiStart

    v3 v4  
    11= REPUTE Working Group Wiki =
    3 == BOF and Introduction==
     4== I. Managing Scope and Tone ==
     6This replicates a notice sent on the working group mailing list:
     9( This notice is derived from a posting to the working group mailing list )
     11The topic being covered by the REPUTE
     12working group is inherently difficult and has a long history of
     13difficult participant behavior in previous IETF contexts.
     15This has tended to reduce participation by otherwise-valuable
     16representatives of the community.
     18IETF process and culture is based on open participation.
     19Anyone can participate in any working group.  But this also
     20means that participants must strive to be constructive.
     22This obviously means maintaining a professional demeanor, but
     23it also means staying within scope.  Failure in either produces
     24a distracted and likely hostile environment.  Which winds up
     25meaning that the WG discourages participation and fails to
     26move forward.
     28Anyone can have a bad day and fail in one way or the other.
     30Patterns of failure are another matter, and is where the chairs, acting
     31as WG management, must act.
     33Some working groups are managed loosely because they're on
     34relatively non-controversial subject matter, however the Repute
     35Working Group is not one of those.
     37This message is being sent to ensure that participants are aware
     38of the rules governing participation and enforcement procedures.
     40Here is the formal IETF documentation for procedures to enforce
     41acceptable participation:
     44=== 1.   RFC 2418:  IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures ===
     48> 3.3 Session Management
     49> ...
     50> To facilitate making forward
     51> progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject
     52> or defer the input from a member, based upon the following
     53> criteria:
     55> Old:
     56>    The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved
     57>    and is redundant with information previously available;
     59> Minor
     60>    The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
     61>    been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the
     62>    existing decision;
     64> Timing
     65>    The input pertains to a topic that the working group
     66>    has not yet opened for discussion; or
     68> Scope
     69>    The input is outside of the scope of the working group
     70>    charter.
     74=== 2.  RFC 3934 as it amends RFC 2418 section 3.2 ===
     78> As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more
     79> individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in
     80> the opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process.
     81> Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be
     82> stopped immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage
     83> the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the
     84> offending individual.  If the behavior persists, the WG chair
     85> should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list.
     86> As a last resort and typically after one or more explicit
     87> warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director,
     88> the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of
     89> the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days...
     93=== Therefore ===
     95The REPUTE Working Group chairs will be actively managing the group's conduct
     96with respect to any egregious behavior or any tendency towards
     97participation that qualifies under the criteria listed under
     98RFC 2418, Section 3.2 (as amended) or Section 3.3, and will
     99use the enforcement procedures defined in RFC 3934 if necessary.
     103== II.  BOF and Introduction==
    5105The working group had a BOF, which included a basic introduction to the topic: