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
具有多样性和专业行为的IETF
Abstract
摘要
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.
通过开放参与和多样化合作的文化生产当今互联网技术的过程已被证明是非常高效和有效的，并且在标准组织中是独特的。在IETF及其前身的早期，参与人员几乎完全由一小群资金雄厚的美国白人男性技术人员组成，他们在管理和个人互动方面表现出独特而富有挑战性的群体动态。在IETF的情况下，交互风格通常包含异常攻击性的行为，通常包括异常敌对的语气和内容。具有更大多样性的群体做出更好的决策。获得有意义的多样性需要的不仅仅是一般的善意和原则声明。许多不同的行为会减少参与者的多样性或参与的多样性。本文件从多样性的性质和可能增加或减少多样性的实际问题方面讨论了IETF的参与。本文件代表了作者在IETF中对问题进行一般性讨论后的评估和建议。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
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 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
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 (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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)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
目录
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
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.
本文件从多样性的性质和可能增加或减少多样性的实际问题方面讨论了IETF的参与。IETF最近对该主题进行了讨论，该文件代表了作者对该主题的评估和建议，认为该主题对IETF具有建设性，并且至少与IETF社区的一些参与者一致。
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.
互联网工程特别工作组（IETF）起源于20世纪60年代末开始的一项研究工作，由美国国防部高级研究计划局（ARPA，后来的DARPA）提供中央资金，利用美国各地的一系列研究网站，包括一些美国军事团体的参与。社区最初仅限于受资助研究小组成员的参与。在20世纪80年代，参与扩大到包括由其他机构资助的项目，最引人注目的是美国国家科学基金会的NSFNET工作。20世纪80年代末，IETF以目前的形式创建时，小组的参与完全开放，允许任何人参加，不受资金、隶属关系、来源国等因素的影响。
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.
除了我们现在享受的由此产生的技术的明显效果之外，通过开放参与和多样化合作的文化生产当今互联网技术的过程已经证明是非常高效和有效的，并且在标准组织中是独特的。这种文化在参与者来源、组织结构、经济周期和正式流程的许多变化中得以维持。然而，保持IETF的有效性需要时刻保持警惕。随着新的参与者加入IETF组合，IETF的操作越来越容易从其他环境中逐步调用模型，这些环境更成熟、更熟悉，但通常效率较低。
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.
从历史上看，参加IETF及其前身几乎完全由一小群资金雄厚的美国白人男性技术人员组成。无论参与者的意图如何，如此狭隘的人口统计显示了一种独特的群体动态，无论是在管理还是在个人互动方面，这种动态一直持续到当前的IETF。攻击性甚至敌意的讨论行为非常普遍。在管理方面，IETF可以显著提高，有利于选择那些已经知名的人。当然，在许多工程环境中，候选人才库存在着多样性的典型限制。除此之外，还有证据和对选择偏见的看法。
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.
在IETF的案例中，交互风格通常会表现出独特的攻击性行为，包括独特的敌对语气和内容。在大多数专业场所，这种行为被认为是非常不专业的，甚至更糟。在IETF中，这种行为具有长期的容忍度。批评某人的敌意是不屑一顾的，可以说他们就是这样，或者说是别人挑起的，或者说这个人通常是出于好意。此外，任何对这种行为表示担忧的人通常都会被告诫不要太敏感；也就是说，攻击的接受者如果抱怨，往往会受到批评或被解雇。
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.
随着IETF向任何人敞开了参与的大门，可以预见，IETF的人口统计已经朝着更大的多样化方向发展。然而，群体文化尚未适应这些变化。激进的辩论风格和对人身攻击的容忍可能会让来自更礼貌文化的参与者极为反感。而且，管理层的选择过程往往会不适当地排除某些支持者。
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.
最近，一个名为“systers”的非正式IETF妇女利益团体的成员组织了一个安静的实验，通过IETF的“NomCom”过程，提出了大量女性管理职位候选人。NomCom本身就是一个潜在的IETF参与者多元化群体，从最近提供服务的会议参与者中随机选择。因此，其有问题的选择——或者更确切地说，是遗漏——可以被视为总体上反映了IETF文化。
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].
同一时期的其他活动也导致IETF考虑不可接受的行为，通常归类为骚扰。这导致IESG发布了正式的IETF反骚扰政策[反骚扰]。
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.
改变一个组织的文化是困难的，不仅需要对基本原则的承诺，而且需要警惕和持续的努力。IESG已经迈出了重要的第一步。我们需要的不仅仅是立场文件和理想表达，而是对整个社会的继续教育，以及对不可接受的行为作出立即和实质性的反应。
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.
多样性涉及群体组成的多样性。它可以合理地触及每一个可能的参与者属性。它包括与任务相关的属性，如知识和经验，以及通常范围内的“确定的阶级”属性，包括种族、信仰、肤色、宗教、性别和性取向，但也包括各种信仰、行为、经验、偏好和经济地位。
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.
影响群体决策质量的因素是复杂而微妙的，不受精确规范的约束。然而，从广义上讲，具有更大多样性的群体会做出更好的决策[Kellogg]。在数量和质量方面，他们在不同的任务中表现得更好，大量研究发现，异质性往往是思想和创新的渠道[WiseCrowd][Horowitz][Stahl][Joshi]。一个参与者的隐含假设可能不是另一个参与者的考虑因素，甚至其他参与者可能不知道。而且，不同的参与者可以带来不同的知识基础和不同的分析风格。具有相同背景和经验的人很容易提出相同的想法，并对其进行相同的分析，从而减少出现新想法和方法的可能性，或减少需要注意的潜在问题。
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].
然而，努力关注群体多样性的愿望往往导致机械的统计努力，以确保每个确定的选区都有代表性。对于较小的人群，如IETF，尤其是其小型管理团队，这种方法会适得其反。首先，不可能确定每一个可能相关的选区。第二，群体规模不允许每个群体都有代表性。因此，在实践中，多样性的合法表现只需要有意义的多样性，而不是盲目的簿记。此外，如果不小心，它可能会导致多样性的负面影响，决策速度减慢，互动减少，冲突增加[Horowitz]。
Pragmatically, then, concern for diversity merely requires serious attention to satisfying two requirements:
因此，务实地说，关注多样性只需要认真关注满足两个要求：
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.
参与者多样性：关于谁可以进入团队的决定需要确保选择过程鼓励成员之间的不同属性。也就是说，这涉及到群体人口统计的多样性。
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.
参与多样性：在一个小组内有效地产生想法和进行审查，需要确保小组的讨论鼓励所有成员的建设性参与，并认真考虑每个成员的意见。因此，这关系到群体动力学。
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.
换句话说，在小组作文中寻找真正的多样性，在参与者讨论中寻找真正的多样性。这将确定更多种类的可能和实际解决方案。
Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic good will and statements of principle. The challenges, here, are to actively:
获得有意义的多样性需要的不仅仅是一般的善意和原则声明。这里的挑战是积极：
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.
它还需要在开放的工程环境中对多样性的实用性进行教育，并且它需要定期考虑每个决策可能对多样性产生什么影响的组织过程。
Examples abound:
例子不胜枚举：
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。
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.
许多不同的行为会减少参与者的多样性或参与的多样性。一类努力是基于公开行动，通过恐吓某些参与者保持沉默或离开，使他们边缘化。恐吓行为分为两种类型，需要区别对待。一种是骚扰，它涉及对人口阶层的偏见对待。许多已确定的阶级通常受到法律的保护，社区对这种有偏见的行为不能容忍的理解也逐渐提高。
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]:
其他恐吓措施针对的是目标个人，通常被贴上欺凌[哈尔布尔][工作场所][迹象][升级][预防]的标签。工作场所欺凌的性质和程度被广泛低估、误解和处理不当。WikiHow的一篇文章[WikiHow]对此进行了如下描述：
...[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:
此外，提姆菲尔德基金会（BulySeR）列出了一个“连环欺凌”的特征，如下所述：
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:
无论是针对班级还是针对个人，使用的恐吓方法都可以：
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].
如果其他人，特别是管理团队的人能够容忍，这些方法会创造一个敌对的工作环境[交易]。
When public harassment or bullying is tolerated, the hostile environment is not only for the person directly subject to the attacks.
当容忍公众骚扰或欺凌时，敌对环境不仅针对直接受到攻击的人。
The harassment also serves to intimidate others who observe that it is tolerated. It teaches them that misbehaviors will not be held accountable.
骚扰还可以恐吓那些认为可以容忍的人。它告诉他们，行为不端不会被追究责任。
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.
IETF的反骚扰政策[反骚扰]使用一个术语来涵盖对已确定选区的典型骚扰，以及有针对性的欺凌行为。因此，该政策的文本是全面的，将不可接受的行为定义为“不受欢迎的敌对或恐吓行为”。此外，该政策声明：“IETF不会容忍此类骚扰。”当骚扰发生时，寻求补救的途径被指定为指定的监察员。
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:
许多不同组织的政策中都体现了对欺凌和骚扰的统一处理，尤其是那些成员广泛不同的组织，甚至开放、国际参与，与IETF类似。例子包括：
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]
Facebook：社区标准[F-H-Cybul]
LinkedIn: "Be Nice" in LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines [L-H-Cybul]
LinkedIn：LinkedIn专业社区指南中的“友善”
YouTube: Harassment and cyberbullying [Y-H-Cybul]
YouTube：骚扰和网络欺凌[Y-H-Cybul]
NetHui: Kaupapa and code of conduct [NetHui]
网汇：考帕帕和行为准则[NetHui]
GeekFeminism: Conference anti-harassment: Adopting a policy [GeekFeminism]
极客女性主义：会议反骚扰：采取政策[极客女性主义]
In fact, there is a view that harassment is merely a form of bullying, given the same goal of undermining participation by the target:
事实上，有一种观点认为，骚扰仅仅是一种欺凌，因为同样的目标是破坏目标的参与：
Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature... [Wiki-SexHarass]
性骚扰是一种性的欺凌或胁迫。。。[维基性骚扰]
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.
IETF长期以来容忍参与者的攻击性甚至敌对行为。因此，这一政策标志着一个正式的、受欢迎的变化。显而易见的挑战是实现这一改变，将IETF从一种容忍甚至鼓励人际间不良行为的文化转变为一种为其日益多样化的社区提供安全、专业和高效避风港的文化。
Here again, examples abound, to the present:
到目前为止，这里仍然有很多例子：
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。
The goal of open, diverse participation requires explicit and ongoing organizational effort, concerning group access, engagement, and facilitation.
开放、多元化参与的目标需要明确和持续的组织努力，涉及群体访问、参与和促进。
Aiding participants with access to IETF materials and discussions means that it is easy for them to:
帮助参与者获得IETF材料和讨论意味着他们很容易：
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.
在找到材料和讨论之后，让人们更容易了解作品的实质内容的主要方法是用清晰和解释性的语言进行陈述。作家和演讲者需要仔细考虑可能的听众和包裹声明。这通常意味着采取比人们自然选择的更多的辅导方法。在演讲中，这意味着说话要比与密切合作者交流时更仔细、更清晰、更慢。当语言晦涩难懂或充满语言特质时，当演讲速度过快时，多样化的听众就很难接触到它。
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.
一旦内容可以访问，挑战就是为进一步的发展做出不同的贡献。参与意味着通过建设性互动，建设性参与者很容易被倾听和认真对待。
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.
在IETF中，最常见的挑战是选择如何响应评论。IETF的实质是提出建议并对建议提出意见；分歧是常见的，而且通常是健康的，这取决于追求分歧的方式。
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:
为了获得最好的技术，首先需要收获最好的想法。应该促进促进自由讨论、梳理新想法和解决问题的进程。这也将运行到：
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.
重要的是，应促进参与者随时提出自己的想法，以促进创新。
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.
在促进多样性的努力与实现工作目标的努力之间找到平衡是一个更大的挑战。包容性的努力包括为新学员提供一定程度的辅导帮助。它们还包括对工作效率较低的参与者的容忍度。此外，并不是每个人都有建设性的能力，容纳这些人的负担很容易变得繁重。
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
例如，可以在会议议程上进行权衡。让工作组会议成为一系列的陈述会有着共同的阻碍。为了提高效率，参与者希望有足够的演示文稿来构建一个问题，然后花面对面的时间进行讨论。然而，“仅仅有足够的介绍”并不能
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.
为教程评论留出很大的空间，以帮助新手。会议时间总是太短，首要要求是取得进展。
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.
IETF公开提供技术文件的记录非常出色，其公开参与邮件列表和会议的官方政策也是如此。它在管理和过程文档方面的记录更加多样化，部分原因是这些记录涵盖了间接职能，而不是IETF工作的主线，因此也包括专业知识。因此，他们并不总是得到勤奋的关注。这些因素包括由工程师进行管理的固有挑战，以及使管理和过程文档可供非专家和非英语母语人士使用的挑战。
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.
从表面上看，IETF在开放访问和参与方面的记录令人惊讶地好，因为没有“会员资格”，任何人都可以加入IETF邮件列表并参加IETF会议。事实上，对于那些拥有良好资金、旅行时间和了解IETF文化技能的人来说，这项记录确实是优秀的。
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.
然而，对于那些有资金、后勤或语言限制的人来说，存在着非常现实的挑战。特别是，这些阻碍了出席会议。另一个挑战是来自更礼貌文化的人，他们被IETF中流行的攻击性辩论风格所疏远。
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.
对于任何一个参与者来说，其他参与者的贡献可能会被认为是有问题的，可能没有什么价值。更糟糕的是，有些捐款的方式会激起个人的负面反应。
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:
为响应这些贡献而选择的方式极大地影响了团队的生产力。攻击演讲者的风格、动机或资历是没有用的，主要是为了分散对实质性问题的讨论。面对这些挑战，在进行建设性交流的许多可能方式中，指导包括：
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.
这里的要点是，就实质问题进行建设性交流的方式是关注实质问题。避免分心的方法是忽略任何与物质无关的个人问题。
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.
有时，有问题的参与者不能被合理地忽略。他们的行为对团队交流来说太破坏性、太无礼或太有害。我们中的任何人都可能有过多的时间，但当行为过于极端或代表一种模式时，就需要干预。
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].
一个共同的观点是，这应该由个人来执行，但对于此类案件，它很少有多大效果。这就是需要IETF管理干预的地方。IETF现在有一套相当丰富的关于问题行为的政策。因此，要求仅仅是认真执行政策。根据具体情况，工作组主席、邮件列表主持人、监察员或IETF主席是联系[MlLists][反骚扰]的合适人选。
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.
这里的挑战是，管理层和社区的其他成员合作，传达骚扰和欺凌是不可容忍的。正式的政策做出了这样的声明，但除非强制执行，否则没有任何意义。
Abusive behavior is easily extinguished. All it takes is community resolve.
虐待行为很容易消除。所需要的只是社区的决心。
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.
IETF在互联网社区中作用的安全性取决于其作为技术文档协作开发的开放和生产场所的可信度。更多样化的审查会导致更严格的审查，因此技术文档的质量可能会提高。IETF运营所在的各个司法管辖区未来可能产生的法律责任也表明，需要采取行动加强行为政策，特别关注工作场所安全。
[Anti-Harass] IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013, <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>.
[反骚扰]IESG，“IETF反骚扰政策”，2013年11月<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ ietf反骚扰政策.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>.
[MlLists]IESG，“IESG关于IETF工作组邮件列表审核的指南”，2000年8月<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ 版主列表.html>。
[Bully-Ser] Tim Field Foundation, "Introduction to the Serial Bully: Serial Bully Traits", <http://bullyonline.org/workbully/ serial_introduction.htm>.
提姆《野战基金会》：《连环霸王简介：连环欺凌特征》，<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>.
[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<https://crana.org.au/uploads/pdfs/ SAgov_欺凌员工。pdf>。
[Defensive] Bickham, I., "Defensive Communication", <http://www.people-communicating.com/ defensive-communication.html>.
[防御性]Bickham，I.，“防御性沟通”<http://www.people-communicating.com/ 防御通信.html>。
[Div-Discuss] IETF, "Diversity Discussion List", <http://www.ietf.org/ mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html>.
[部门讨论]IETF，“多样性讨论列表”<http://www.ietf.org/ 邮件存档/web/diversity/current/maillist.html>。
[Div-DT] IETF, "Diversity Design Team wiki", 2013, <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/>.
[Div DT]IETF，“多样性设计团队维基”，2013年<https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/>.
[Escalated] Namie, G., "Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility", Ivey Business Journal 9B03TF09, November/December 2003.
[升级]Namie，G.，“工作场所欺凌：升级的不文明”，艾维商业杂志9B03TF09，2003年11月/12月。
[F-H-Cybul] Facebook, "Community Standards", 2015, <https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards>.
[F-H-Cybul]Facebook，“社区标准”，2015年<https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards>.
[GeekFeminism] Geek Feminism Wiki, "Conference anti-harassment: Adopting a policy", <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/ 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”<http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/ 会议\反骚扰>。
[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>.
[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<http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/ 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", <https://www.iab.org/>.
[IAB]“互联网架构委员会”<https://www.iab.org/>.
[IAOC] "IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)", <https://iaoc.ietf.org/>.
[IAOC]“IETF行政监督委员会（IAOC）”<https://iaoc.ietf.org/>.
[IEEE-Cybul] IEEE, "IEEE CODE OF CONDUCT", June 2014, <https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee_code_of_conduct.pdf>.
【IEEE Cybul】IEEE，“IEEE行为准则”，2014年6月<https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee_code_of_conduct.pdf>.
[IETF] IETF, "The Internet Engineering Task Force", <https://www.ietf.org/>.
[IETF]IETF，“互联网工程任务组”<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>.
[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<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>.
[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<http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/ 通过多样性>做出更好的决策。
[L-H-Cybul] LinkedIn, "LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines", 2015, <https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593>.
[L-H-Cybul]LinkedIn，“LinkedIn专业社区指南”，2015年<https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593>.
[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>.
[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<http://thoughtsonliberty.com/ 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, <http://2015.nethui.nz/code-of-conduct>.
[NetHui]新西兰互联网，“Kaupapa和行为准则”，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>.
[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>.
[SC Cybul]加拿大童子军，“欺凌/骚扰政策”，2012年5月<http://www.scouts.ca/cys/ 政策欺凌和骚扰。pdf>。
[Signs] Workplace Bullying Institute, "Employee Resource Council: 20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying", November 2013, <http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/11/10/erc/>.
[迹象]职场欺凌研究所，“员工资源委员会：职场欺凌的20个微妙迹象”，2013年11月<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>.
[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<http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v41/n4/ 完整/jibs200985a.html>。
[Wiki-SexHarass] Wikipedia, "Sexual harassment", November 2015, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&oldid=689426449>.
[维基性骚扰]维基百科，“性骚扰”，2015年11月<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php？title=性骚扰&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>.
[wikiHow]wikiHow，“如何应对职场欺凌和骚扰”，2015年11月<http://www.wikihow.com/ index.php？title=处理职场欺凌和骚扰&oldid=18828395>。
[WiseCrowd] Wikipedia, "The Wisdom of Crowds", November 2015, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ 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<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php？title=人群的智慧&oldid=689201384>。
[Workplace] "Workplace Bullying", YouTube video, 12:30, posted by "QualiaSoup", February 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80>.
[工作场所]“工作场所欺凌”，YouTube视频，12:30，“Qualiasup”发布，2013年2月<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>.
[Y-H-Cybul]谷歌，“骚扰和网络欺凌-YouTube帮助”，2015年<https://support.google.com/youtube/ 回答/2801920？hl=en&rd=1>。
Acknowledgements
致谢
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.
本文件是由组织变革推动的，标志着IESG通过了IETF的反骚扰政策，以及随后的一些后续活动和讨论。一些人在私下讨论中提出了深思熟虑的意见。
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
作者地址
Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking 675 Spruce Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94086 United States
戴夫·克罗克·勃兰登堡互联网络美国加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔市云杉大道675号，邮编94086
Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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
Email: narelle.clark@pavonis.com.au
Phone: +61 412297043
Email: narelle.clark@pavonis.com.au