Independent Submission                                        D. Crocker
Request for Comments: 7704                   Brandenburg InternetWorking
Category: Informational                                         N. Clark
ISSN: 2070-1721                                       Pavonis Consulting
                                                           November 2015
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




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.

这是对RFC系列的贡献,独立于任何其他RFC流。RFC编辑器已选择自行发布此文档,并且未声明其对实现或部署的价值。RFC编辑批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准;见RFC 5741第2节。

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice


Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

版权所有(c)2015 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( 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.

本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件,因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。

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
   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
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

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.


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].

多年来,一些妇女被选为IETF的作者、工作组主席、区域主任、互联网架构委员会[IAB]成员和IETF行政监督委员会[IAOC]成员。然而,systers实验的结果并不令人鼓舞。尽管她们招募了不成比例的女性候选人,但没有一个被选中。尽管任何一位候选人都可能因为完全正当的理由被拒绝,但这种一致的拒绝模式表明存在组织偏见。结果是在IETF全会上提出的,他们产生了显著的IETF灵魂搜索,以及创建一组来考虑IETF[DIVD] [DIV讨论]的多样性问题。

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].


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. 担心
2.1. Diversity
2.1. 差异

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].


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 鼓励建设性的多样性

o Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to reduce diversity

o 努力避免有助于减少多样性的群体动态

o Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to diminish the benefits of diversity

o 努力避免削弱多样性好处的群体动态

o Remove those dynamics when they still occur

o 当这些动态仍然发生时,请删除它们

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.

o 形式上,IETF工作组在其邮件列表上做出决定。由于任何人都可以加入该名单,因此任何可以访问互联网的人都可以参与。然而,工作组也会在第三届IETF年度面对面会议上召开会议,并可能召开临时会议,这些会议可以是面对面会议、电话会议或视频会议。参加这些会议可能会很有挑战性。参加面对面的会议需要花费大量的金钱和时间;远程参与通常会导致时间转移,包括很早或很晚的时间。因此,增加工作组对会议的依赖倾向于排除那些资金较少、旅行时间较少或工作安排较为结构化的人。

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 在工程界,大力倡导强烈的技术偏好是很常见的。当然,它可以是健康的,因为有力的支持是促进工作成功的必要条件。然而,在IETF中,这可能以两种有问题的方式表现出来。一种是过于咄咄逼人的个人风格,会威胁到持有其他观点的人,从而无理地堵住他们的嘴。另一种是群体风格,过早地接受选择,不允许对备选方案进行公平听证。

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 可以预见,工程师重视工程技能。当任务是工程时,这是完全合适的。然而,IETF为支持其工程工作而开展的许多活动较少涉及工程,更多涉及人员和组织过程。这些需要非常不同的技能。在某种程度上,这些过程的参与者主要是根据他们的工程能力来考虑的,那些在其他相关技能方面更强大的参与者将被低估,IETF需要的专业知识的多样性也将丧失。

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.

o IETF标准旨在由不属于工作组流程的人员阅读、理解和实施。标准的要点也经常需要非工程师的经理和操作员阅读。IETF规范在包含教学法方面享有相当大的风格自由度,以服务于这些受众目标。然而,额外的教学工作是非常重要的,那些已经理解并接受技术细节的积极参与者往往会拒绝做出这种努力。更糟糕的是,在规范开发过程中也需要这种努力,因为许多参与者可能缺乏理解所指定内容所需的背景或卓越洞察力。然而,IETF的“粗略共识”咒语正是关于招募支持的需要。事实上,在“教育”他人的过程中,往往会发现遗漏的问题。

2.2. Harassment and Bullying
2.2. 骚扰和欺凌

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.


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:

…针对员工的行为,旨在贬低、羞辱、羞辱或以其他方式损害员工的绩效。。。[T] 他肯定是一个恃强凌弱的人,这不仅仅意味着一个简单的误解或个人分歧。。。可能包括:

* Shouting, whether in private, in front of colleagues, or in front of customers

* 无论是在私下、在同事面前还是在顾客面前大声叫喊

* Name-calling

* 点名

* Belittling or disrespectful comments

* 轻视或不尊重的评论

* Excessive monitoring, criticizing, or nitpicking someone's work

* 过度监督、批评或挑剔某人的工作

* Deliberately overloading someone with work

* 故意让某人超负荷工作

* Undermining someone's work by setting them up to fail

* 通过让别人失败来破坏别人的工作

* Purposefully withholding information needed to perform a job efficiently

* 有目的地保留有效执行工作所需的信息

* Actively excluding someone from normal workplace/staff room conversations and making someone feel unwelcome

* 积极地将某人排除在正常的工作场所/员工房间谈话之外,使某人感到不受欢迎

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 杰基尔和海德大自然——杰基尔博士是“迷人的”和“有魅力的”“海德”是“邪恶”

o Exploits the trust and needs of organizations and individuals, for personal gain

o 利用组织和个人的信任和需求谋取私利

o Convincing liar -- Makes up anything to fit their needs at that moment

o 有说服力的说谎者——为了满足他们当时的需要而编造任何东西

o Damages the health and reputations of organizations and individuals

o 损害组织和个人的健康和声誉

o Reacts to criticism with Denial, Retaliation, Feigned Victimhood [Defensive], [MB-Misuse]

o 对批评的反应是否认、报复、假装受害者[防御],[MB误用]

o Blames victims

o 指责受害者

o Apparently immune from disciplinary action

o 显然不受纪律处分

o Moves to a new target when the present one burns out

o 当当前目标烧毁时移动到新目标

Whether directed at classes or individuals, intimidation methods used can:


o Seem relatively passive, such as consistently ignoring a member

o 似乎相对被动,例如始终忽略某个成员

o Seem mild, such as with a quiet tone or language of condescension

o 看起来温和的,如用安静的语气或居高临下的语言

o Be quite active, such as aggressively attacking what is said by the participant

o 相当积极,例如积极攻击参与者所说的话

o Be disingenuous, masking attacks in a passive-aggressive style

o 不诚实,以被动攻击的方式掩盖攻击

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]

加拿大童子军:欺凌/骚扰政策[SC Cybul]

IEEE: Code of Conduct [IEEE-Cybul]

IEEE:行为准则[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.

o 在长期的同事中,可接受的人际关系风格可以是同事想要的任何东西,即使它在观察者看来可能相当令人不快。当IETF参与者与其他人或在其他人在场的情况下参与此类行为时,就会出现问题,这些人不同意这种关系类型的社会契约,甚至可能不理解这种契约。对其他人来说,这种行为可能极为疏远,对参与产生抑制作用。然而,在IETF中,参与者普遍认为自己有权以过于熟悉、咄咄逼人甚至敌对的方式行事,这在同事中可能是可以接受的,但在陌生人面前却具有破坏性。

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 一旦有评论涉及到演讲者的任何属性,例如他们的动机、雇主的性质或他们参与风格的质量,那么互动就不再是技术评估了。在许多文化中,所有这些言论都是恐吓或冒犯性的。因此,在开放的专业参与环境中,他们是不被允许的。

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.

o 就个人风格或一时的热情而言,人们很容易对某人的言论进行屈尊或轻蔑的评论。作为一种讨论技巧,其功能是试图减少目标对团队的影响。无论是非言语的(如翻白眼)、家长式的(如注意到目标的幼稚)还是公开的敌意(如责难目标的动机),这都是试图边缘化该人,而不是关注他们所说的话的优点。它构成骚扰或欺凌。

3. Constructive Participation
3. 建设性参与

The goal of open, diverse participation requires explicit and ongoing organizational effort, concerning group access, engagement, and facilitation.


3.1. Access
3.1. 通道

Aiding participants with access to IETF materials and discussions means that it is easy for them to:


o Know what exists

o 知道存在什么吗

o Find what is of interest

o 找到感兴趣的东西

o Retrieve documents or gain access to discussions

o 检索文档或访问讨论

o Be able to understand the content

o 能够理解内容

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.


3.2. Engagement
3.2. 订婚

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
3.3. 促进

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 鼓励胆小的发言者作出贡献

o Showing warmth for new contributors

o 对新的贡献者表现出热情

o Preventing dominance by, or blind deference to, those perceived as the more senior and authoritative contributors

o 防止那些被视为更资深、更权威的贡献者占据主导地位或盲目服从

o Actively shutting down derogatory styles

o 积极关闭贬损风格

It is important that participants be facilitated in tendering their own ideas readily so that innovation thrives.


3.4. Balance
3.4. 均衡

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


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
3.5. IETF跟踪记录

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
3.6. 避免分心

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.

o 忽视这些贡献;也许其他人可以进行富有成效的交换,但不要求任何人做出回应。

o Respond to the content, not the author; in the extreme, literally ignore the author and merely address the group about the content.

o 回应内容,而不是作者;在极端情况下,从字面上忽略作者,只针对内容向群体发表演讲。

o Offer better content, including an explanation of the reasons it is better.

o 提供更好的内容,包括解释更好的原因。

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
4. 对非建设性参与的回应

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
5. 安全考虑

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.


6. References
6. 工具书类
6.1. Normative References
6.1. 规范性引用文件

[Anti-Harass] IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013, < ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>.

[反骚扰]IESG,“IETF反骚扰政策”,2013年11月< ietf反骚扰政策.html>。

[MlLists] IESG, "IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working Group Mailing Lists", August 2000, < moderated-lists.html>.

[MlLists]IESG,“IESG关于IETF工作组邮件列表审核的指南”,2000年8月< 版主列表.html>。

6.2. Informative References
6.2. 资料性引用

[Bully-Ser] Tim Field Foundation, "Introduction to the Serial Bully: Serial Bully Traits", < serial_introduction.htm>.

提姆《野战基金会》:《连环霸王简介:连环欺凌特征》,< 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, < SAgov_bullying_employees.pdf>.

[处理]南澳大利亚政府,“处理工作场所欺凌:员工实用指南”,工作场所欺凌问题跨机构圆桌会议,南澳大利亚,2007年< SAgov_欺凌员工。pdf>。

[Defensive] Bickham, I., "Defensive Communication", < defensive-communication.html>.

[防御性]Bickham,I.,“防御性沟通”< 防御通信.html>。

[Div-Discuss] IETF, "Diversity Discussion List", < mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html>.

[部门讨论]IETF,“多样性讨论列表”< 邮件存档/web/diversity/current/maillist.html>。

[Div-DT] IETF, "Diversity Design Team wiki", 2013, <>.

[Div DT]IETF,“多样性设计团队维基”,2013年<>.

[Escalated] Namie, G., "Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility", Ivey Business Journal 9B03TF09, November/December 2003.


[F-H-Cybul] Facebook, "Community Standards", 2015, <>.


[GeekFeminism] Geek Feminism Wiki, "Conference anti-harassment: Adopting a policy", < Conference_anti-harassment>.

[极客女性主义]极客女权主义维基,“会议反骚扰:采取政策”< 会议\反骚扰>。

[Har-Bul] UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, "Harassment and bullying at work", January 2015, < harassment-bullying-at-work.aspx>.

[Har Bul]英国特许人事与发展研究所,“工作中的骚扰和欺凌”,2015年1月< 工作中的骚扰和欺凌。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.

[Horowitz]Horwitz,S.和I.Horwitz,“团队多样性对团队结果的影响:团队人口学的元分析回顾”,《管理学杂志》,第33卷(6),p。987-10152007年12月,DOI 10.1177/01492063078587。

[IAB] "Internet Architecture Board", <>.


[IAOC] "IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)", <>.


[IEEE-Cybul] IEEE, "IEEE CODE OF CONDUCT", June 2014, <>.

【IEEE Cybul】IEEE,“IEEE行为准则”,2014年6月<>.

[IETF] IETF, "The Internet Engineering Task Force", <>.


[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, < unterlagen-ws1415/josh-roh-2009.pdf>.

[Joshi]Joshi,A.和H.Roh,“背景在工作团队多样性研究中的作用:元分析综述”,《管理学院杂志》,第52卷,第3期,599-627,DOI 10.5465/AMJ.2009.413314911909< 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, < better_decisions_through_diversity>.

[Kellogg]Kellogg Insight,“通过多样性做出更好的决策:异质性可以提高团队绩效”,西北大学Kellogg管理学院,2010年10月< 通过多样性>做出更好的决策。

[L-H-Cybul] LinkedIn, "LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines", 2015, <>.


[MB-Misuse] Rachel Burger, R., "Three Common Ways Libertarians Misuse Myers-Briggs Part 2: Misunderstanding the Feeling Preference", July 2013, < three-common-ways-libertarians-misuse-myers-briggs-part-2- misunderstanding-the-feeling-preference>.

[MB误用]Rachel Burger,R.,“自由主义者误用Myers Briggs的三种常见方式第2部分:误解情感偏好”,2013年7月< 三种常见的方式-自由主义者-滥用-迈尔斯-布里格斯-第二部分-误解感觉偏好>。

[NetHui] InternetNZ, "Kaupapa and code of conduct", NetHui 2015, <>.

[NetHui]新西兰互联网,“Kaupapa和行为准则”,NetHui 2015<>.

              WorkSafe Victoria, "Workplace bullying - prevention and
              response", October 2012,
              WorkSafe Victoria, "Workplace bullying - prevention and
              response", October 2012,

[SC-Cybul] Scouts Canada, "Bullying/Harassment Policy", May 2012, < policy-bullying-and-harassment.pdf>.

[SC Cybul]加拿大童子军,“欺凌/骚扰政策”,2012年5月< 政策欺凌和骚扰。pdf>。

[Signs] Workplace Bullying Institute, "Employee Resource Council: 20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying", November 2013, <>.


[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, < full/jibs200985a.html>.

[Stahl]Stahl,G.,Maznevski,M.,Voigt,A.,和K.Jonsen,“揭示团队中文化多样性的影响:多元文化工作组研究的元分析”,《国际商业研究杂志》41690-709,DOI 10.1057/jibs.2009.852010年5月< 完整/jibs200985a.html>。

[Wiki-SexHarass] Wikipedia, "Sexual harassment", November 2015, < index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&oldid=689426449>.

[维基性骚扰]维基百科,“性骚扰”,2015年11月< index.php?title=性骚扰&oldid=689426449>。

[wikiHow] WikiHow, "How to Deal with Workplace Bullying and Harassment", November 2015, < index.php?title=Deal-with-Workplace-Bullying-and-Harassment&oldid=18828395>.

[wikiHow]wikiHow,“如何应对职场欺凌和骚扰”,2015年11月< index.php?title=处理职场欺凌和骚扰&oldid=18828395>。

[WiseCrowd] Wikipedia, "The Wisdom of Crowds", November 2015, < index.php?title=The_Wisdom_of_Crowds&oldid=689201384>.

[智慧人群]维基百科,“群体的智慧”,2015年11月< index.php?title=人群的智慧&oldid=689201384>。

[Workplace] "Workplace Bullying", YouTube video, 12:30, posted by "QualiaSoup", February 2013, <>.


[Y-H-Cybul] Google, "Harassment and cyberbullying - YouTube Help", 2015, < answer/2801920?hl=en&rd=1>.

[Y-H-Cybul]谷歌,“骚扰和网络欺凌-YouTube帮助”,2015年< 回答/2801920?hl=en&rd=1>。



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).

John Border和SM(Subramanian Moonesamy)提供了对原始草案的评论。

Authors' Addresses


Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking 675 Spruce Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94086 United States


   Phone: +1.408.246.8253
   Phone: +1.408.246.8253

Narelle Clark Pavonis Consulting C/- PO Box 1705 North Sydney, NSW 2059 Australia

Narelle Clark Pavonis咨询公司,邮编:澳大利亚新南威尔士州北悉尼1705号邮政信箱,邮编:2059

   Phone: +61 412297043
   Phone: +61 412297043