One document matched: draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" >
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="no"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="2"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc topblock="yes" ?>
<?rfc autobreaks="yes" ?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-02"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="Much Diversity and Professional Conduct">An IETF with
Much Diversity and Professional Conduct</title>
<author fullname="Dave Crocker" initials="D." surname="Crocker">
<organization>Brandenburg InternetWorking</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>675 Spruce Drive</street>
<city>Sunnyvale</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94086</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1.408.246.8253</phone>
<email>dcrocker@bbiw.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Narelle Clark" initials="N." surname="Clark">
<organization>Pavonis Consulting</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>C/- PO Box 1705</street>
<city>North Sydney</city>
<region>NSW</region>
<code>2059</code>
<country>Australia</country>
</postal>
<phone>+61 412297043</phone>
<email>narelle.clark@pavonis.com.au</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="" month="" year="2015" />
<abstract>
<t>The process of producing today's Internet through a culture of
open participation and diverse collaboration has proved
strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive
among standards organizations. Historically participation in
the IETF and its antecedent was almost entirely composed of
well-funded, American, white, male engineers, establishing a
distinctive and challenging group dynamic, both in management
and in personal interactions. In the case of the IETF,
interaction style can often demonstrate 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
paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF
attention to its diverse participation and to the requirement
for professional demeanor.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>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.
<!--<list>
<t>(As an aside it might be worth noting that the first author was the first
commercial participant allowed to attend under this unrestricted model. Or rather,
my participation was initially allowed as an exception, due to my prior work
within the Arpanet community, but it created the precedent that required the IETF
to become fully open at the very next meeting. My own opinion is that the change
was inevitable and appropriate and the timing proper; by then it had become clear
that the Internet was quickly developing into an open, international service, and
the IETF was an essential venue for technical dialogue to facilitate that.)</t>
</list>--></t>
<t>Beyond the obvious effects of the resulting technology that we
now enjoy, the process of producing today's Internet 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 are less
effective.</t>
<t>Historically participation in the IETF and its antecedent was
almost entirely composed of well-funded, American, white, male
engineers. No matter the intentions of the participants, such
a narrow demographic created a distinctive group dynamic, both
in management and in personal interactions, which 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 environment. Still there
is evidence and perception of selection bias, beyond this.</t>
<t>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, and anyone expressing concern about the behavior
is typically admonished to get thicker skin.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>In 2013, 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 almost at random. Hence its problematic choices -- or
rather, omissions -- could be seen as reflecting IETF culture
generally.</t>
<t>Over the years some women have been chosen for IETF positions
as authors, working group chairs, area directors, IAB members
and IAOC members. However the results of the systers
experiment were not encouraging. In spite of their engineering
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 indicates an organizational bias.
The results were presented at an IETF plenary and it
engendered significant IETF soul-searching, as well as
creation of a group to consider diversity issues for the
IETF.<xref target="Div-DT" /><xref target="Div-Discuss" />
Other activities around that same time also engendered IETF
consideration of unacceptable behaviors, generally classed as
harassment. This resulted in a formal IETF anti-harassment
policy.<xref target="Anti-Harass" />
</t>
<t>This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF
attention to its diverse participation and to the requirement
for professional demeanor.</t>
<t><list>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="NOTE: ">This paper covers difficult
topics that present challenges for
constructive discussion. Nonetheless, feedback
is eagerly sought to improve what it says and
how it says it. The suggested forum for this
draft is the IETF's Diversity discussion list:<list>
<t><figure>
<artwork align="center">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity</artwork>
</figure></t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Concerns">
<section title="Diversity">
<t>Diversity concerns the variability of a group's
composition. It can reasonably touch every conceivable
participant attribute. It includes the usual range of
"identified class" attributes, including race, creed,
color, religion, gender and sexual orientation, but also
extends along with all manner of beliefs, behaviors,
experiences, preferences and economic status.</t>
<t>Groups with greater diversity make better decisions. 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.<xref target="Kellogg" />,<xref
target="WiseCrowd" />,<xref target="Horowitz" /> 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. The same people from the same education 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.</t>
<t>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
small management teams, this approach is
counter-productive. 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.<xref target="Horowitz" /></t>
<t>Pragmatically, then, concern for diversity merely requires
serious attention to satisfying two requirements:<list
style="hanging">
<t hangText="Participant Diversity --">Decisions about
who is allowed into the group require ensuring
that the selection process encourages varying
attributes among members.</t>
<t hangText="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.</t>
</list>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.</t>
<t>Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic
good will and statements of principle. The challenges,
here, are to actively:<list style="symbols">
<t>Encourage constructive diversity</t>
<t>Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to reduce
diversity</t>
<t>Work to avoid group dynamics that serve to diminish
the benefits of diversity</t>
<t>Remove those dynamics when they still occur</t>
</list> 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.</t>
<t>Examples abound:<list style="symbols">
<t>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, telephonic, or video
conferencing. 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
include 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.</t>
<t>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. </t>
<t>Predictably, engineers value engineering skills.
When the task is engineering this is entirely
appropriate. However much of the IETF's
activities, in support of its engineering efforts,
is 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Harassment and Bullying">
<t>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 can not
be tolerated has progressively improved.</t>
<t>Other intimidation efforts are tailored to targeted
individuals and are generally labeled bullying.<xref
target="Har-Bul" />,<xref target="Video" />,<xref
target="Signs" />, <xref target="Escalated" />, <xref
target="Prevention" /> The nature and extent of
bullying in the workplace is widely underestimated,
misunderstood and mishandled. It is:<list>
<t>"...[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: <list
style="symbols">
<t>Shouting, whether in private, in front of
colleagues, or in front of customers</t>
<t>Name-calling</t>
<t>Belittling or disrespectful comments</t>
<t>Excessive monitoring, criticizing, or
nitpicking someone's work</t>
<t>Deliberately overloading someone with
work</t>
<t>Undermining someone's work by setting them
up to fail</t>
<t>Purposefully withholding information needed
to perform a job efficiently</t>
<t>Actively excluding someone from normal
workplace/staff room conversations and
making someone feel unwelcome"<xref
target="wikiHow" /></t>
</list>
</t>
<t>"Perhaps the most easily recognizable Serial Bully
traits are: <list style="symbols">
<t>Jekyll and Hyde nature — Dr Jekyll is
'charming' and 'charismatic'; 'Hyde' is
'evil'</t>
<t>Exploits the trust and needs of
organizations and individuals, for
personal gain</t>
<t>Convincing liar — Makes up anything
to fit their needs at that moment</t>
<t>Damages the health and reputations of
organizations and individuals</t>
<t>Reacts to criticism with Denial,
Retaliation, Feigned Victimhood <xref
target="Defensive" />, <xref
target="MB-Misue" /></t>
<t>Blames victims</t>
<t>Apparently immune from disciplinary
action</t>
<t>Moves to a new target when the present one
burns out "<xref target="Bully-Ser" /></t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t>Whether directed at classes or individuals, intimidation
methods used can: <list style="symbols">
<t>Seem relatively passive, such is consistently
ignoring a member</t>
<t>Seem mild, such as with a quiet tone or language of
condescension</t>
<t>Be quite active, such as aggressively attacking
what is said by the participant</t>
<t>Be disingenuous, masking attacks in a passive
aggressive style</t>
</list> If tolerated by others, and especially by those
managing the group, these methods create a hostile work
environment. <xref target="Dealing" /><list>
<t>When public harassment or bullying is tolerated,
the hostile environment is not only for the person
directly subject to the attacks.</t>
<t>The harassment also serves to intimidate others who
observe that it is tolerated. It teaches them that
misbehaviors will not be held accountable.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The IETF's Anti-Harsassment Policy <xref
target="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
Ombudperson. </t>
<t>However the IETF has a long history of tolerating
aggressive and even hostile behavior by participants. So
this policy signals a substantial and welcome change. The
obvious challenge is to make the change real, moving the
IETF from a culture that tolerates -- or even encourages
-- inter-personal misbehaviors to one that provides a
safe, professional, and productive haven for its
increasingly-diverse community. </t>
<t>Here again, examples abound:<list style="symbols">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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. </t>
<t>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, it is
intended to reduce the target's influence on the
group. Whether non-verbal, 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.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Constructive Participation">
<t>The goal of open, diverse participation requires explicit and
on-going organizational effort to ensure that it happens for
access, engagement and facilitation.</t>
<section title="Access">
<t>Aiding participants with access to IETF materials and
discussions means that it is easy for them to:<list
style="symbols">
<t>Know what exists</t>
<t>Find what is of interest</t>
<t>Retrieve documents or gain access to
discussions</t>
<t>Be able to understand the content</t>
</list></t>
<t>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 one needs 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Engagement">
<t>Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner
diverse contribution for further development. Engagement
means that it easy for constructive participants to be
heard and taken seriously through constructive
interaction. </t>
<t>Within the IETF, the most common challenge is the choices
participants make in the way they 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. </t>
</section>
<section title="Facilitation">
<t>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: <list
style="symbols">
<t>Encouraging contributions from timid speakers</t>
<t>Showing warmth for new contributors</t>
<t>Preventing dominance by, or blind deference to,
those perceived as the more senior and
authoritative contributors</t>
<t>Actively shutting down derogatory styles</t>
</list></t>
<t>It is important that participants be facilitated in
tendering their own ideas readily so that innovation
thrives.</t>
</section>
<section title="Balance">
<t>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.</t>
<t>As an example, there can be tradeoffs with meeting agendas.
There is common push-back 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="IETF Track Record">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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 is excellent.</t>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Avoiding Distraction">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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. Among the many possible ways to pursue
constructive exchange, in the face of such challenges,
guidance includes: <list style="symbols">
<t>Ignore such contributions; perhaps someone else can
produce a productive exchange, but there is no
requirement that anyone respond.</t>
<t>Respond to the content, not the author; in the
extreme, literally ignore the author and merely
address the group about the content. </t>
<t>Offer better content, including an explanation of
the reasons it is better.</t>
</list> 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Responses to Unconstructive Participation">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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, Ombudperson or perhaps
IETF Chair is the appropriate person to contact.<xref
target="MlLists" />,<xref target="Anti-Harass" /></t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Abusive behavior is easily extinguished. All it takes is
community resolve. </t>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>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. 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. </t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="References - Normative">
<reference anchor="Anti-Harass">
<front>
<title>IETF Anti-Harassment Policy</title>
<author>
<organization>IETF</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MlLists">
<front>
<title>IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working
Group Mailing Lists</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/moderated-lists.html"
/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="References - Informative">
<reference anchor="Dealing">
<front>
<title>Dealing with Workplace Bullying: A practical guide
for employees</title>
<author
fullname="Interagency Round Table on
Workplace Bullying, South Australia" />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="www.stopbullyingsa.com.au/documents/bullying_employees.pdf"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Signs">
<front>
<title>20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/11/10/erc/ "
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Har-Bul">
<front>
<title>Harassment and bullying at work</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/harassment-bullying-at-work.aspx"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Horowitz">
<front>
<title>The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A
meta-analysis review of team demography</title>
<author fullname="S. Horwitz" initials="S."
surname="Horwitz" />
<author fullname="I. Horwitz" initials="I."
surname="Horwitz" />
<date year="2007" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Journal of Management"
value="Vol 33 (6) p 987-1015" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Video">
<front>
<title>Workplace Bullying</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80" />
<annotation>(12:30min; animated; what bullying is and is
not)</annotation>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Div-Discuss">
<front>
<title>IETF Diversity Discussion List</title>
<author fullname="IETF">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Bully-Ser">
<front>
<title>Serial Bully Traits</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://bullyonline.org/workbully/serial_introduction.htm"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Div-DT">
<front>
<title>Diversity Design Team wiki</title>
<author fullname="IETF">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/wiki/WikiStart#"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Kellogg">
<front>
<title>Better Decisions Through Diversity</title>
<author fullname="Kellogg School of Management" />
<date day="1" month="Oct" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Kellog Insight"
value="http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/better_decisions_through_diversity" />
<annotation>Heterogeneity can boost group performance
</annotation>
</reference>
<reference anchor="WiseCrowd">
<front>
<title>The Wisdom of Crowds</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Wikipedia"
value="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="wikiHow">
<front>
<title>How to Deal with Workplace Bullying and
Harassment</title>
<author fullname="Terry" role="editor" surname="Terry" />
<author fullname="Booky" role="editor" surname="Booky" />
<author fullname="Versageek" role="editor"
surname="Versageek" />
<author fullname="et al" surname="et al" />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="wikiHow"
value="http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Workplace-Bullying-and-Harassment"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Escalated">
<front>
<title>Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility</title>
<author fullname="Gary Namie" initials="G."
surname="Namie" />
<date month="November/December" year="2003" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Ivey Business journal" value="9B03TF09" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Prevention">
<front>
<title>Workplace bullying - prevention and
response</title>
<author fullname="WorksSafe Victoria" />
<date month="October" year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/42893/WS_Bullying_Guide_Web2.pdf"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MB-Misue">
<front>
<title>Three Common Ways Libertarians Misuse Myers-Briggs
Part 2: Misunderstanding the Feeling
Preference</title>
<author />
<date />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://thoughtsonliberty.com/three-common-ways-libertarians-misuse-myers-briggs-part-2-misunderstanding-the-feeling-preference"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Defensive">
<front>
<title>Defensive Communication</title>
<author fullname="Imelda Bickham" initials="I."
surname="Bickham" />
<date day="2013" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="WEB"
value="http://www.people-communicating.com/defensive-communication.html"
/>
</reference>
</references>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>This draft 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.</t>
<t>Comments on the original draft were provided by John Border and
SM (Subramanian Moonesamy).</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:05:22 |