One document matched: draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-05.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-05"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="Diversity & 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 technologies, through a
culture of open participation and diverse collaboration has
proved strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive
among standards organizations. For its early years,
participation in the IETF and its antecedent 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. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>The Internet Engineering Task Force <xref target="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
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.</t>
<t>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, 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 environments.
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, 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.</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 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.</t>
<t>Over the years some women have been chosen for IETF positions as
authors, working group chairs, area directors, Internet
Architecture Board <xref target="IAB"/> members and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee<xref target="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
suggested 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 the
IESG's issuing a formal IETF anti-harassment policy.<xref
target="Anti-Harass"/>
</t>
<t>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 constructive for
the IETF and that it is consonant with at least some of the IETF
community's participants. </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 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
along with all manner of beliefs, behaviors, experiences,
preferences and economic status.</t>
<t>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.<xref
target="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.<xref target="WiseCrowd"
/>,<xref target="Horowitz"/>,<xref target="Stahl"
/>,<xref target="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.</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 its 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>
<t><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.
That is, this concerns variety in group
demographics.</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. This, then, concerns group
dynamics.</t>
</list></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>
<?rfc needLines="7" ?>
<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="Workplace"/>,<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 as 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-Harassment 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>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: <list>
<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Scouts Canada: "
>Bullying/Harassment Policy <xref
target="SC-Cybul"/></t>
<t hangText="IEEE: ">Code of Conduct <xref
target="IEEE-Cybul"/></t>
<t hangText="Facebook: ">Community Standards
<xref target="F-H-Cybul"/></t>
<t hangText="LinkedIn: ">"Be Nice" in LinkedIn
Professional Community Guidelines <xref
target="L-H-Cybul"/></t>
<t hangText="Youtube: ">Harassment and
cyberbullying <xref target="Y-H-Cybul"/></t>
</list>
</t>
</list> In fact there is a view that harassment is merely a
form of bullying, given the same goal of undermining
participation by the target: <list>
<t>"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a
sexual nature..." <xref target="Wiki-SexHarass"
/></t>
</list>
</t>
<t>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 -- inter-personal
misbehaviors to one that provides a safe, professional, and
productive haven for its increasingly-diverse community. </t>
<t>Here again, examples abound, to the present:<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's function is to
attempt 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, concerning group 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
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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Engagement">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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. </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 does qualify as
excellent.</t>
<t>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. </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. In the face of such challenges and among the many
possible ways to pursue constructive exchange, 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. There is
strong potential benefit to technical documents through an
increase in rigor arising from more diverse scrutiny. 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"
target="http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html">
<front>
<title>Anti-Harassment Policy</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF">
<organization>IETF</organization>
</author>
<date year="2013"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MlLists"
target="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/moderated-lists.html">
<front>
<title>Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working Group
Mailing Lists</title>
<author fullname="IESG" surname="IESG"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="References - Informative">
<reference anchor="Dealing"
target="www.stopbullyingsa.com.au/documents/bullying_employees.pdf">
<front>
<title>Dealing with Workplace Bullying: A practical guide
for employees</title>
<author
fullname="Interagency Round Table on
Workplace Bullying, South Australia"
surname="Interagency Round Table on
Workplace Bullying, South Australia"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Signs"
target="http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/11/10/erc/">
<front>
<title>20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying</title>
<author fullname="Workplace Bullying Institute"
surname="Workplace Bullying Institute"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Har-Bul"
target="http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/harassment-bullying-at-work.aspx">
<front>
<title>Harassment and bullying at work</title>
<author
fullname="Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development"
initials="UK"
surname="Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development"/>
<date/>
</front>
</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="Workplace"
target="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80">
<front>
<title>Workplace Bullying</title>
<author initials="Tim Field Foundation"
surname="Tim Field
Foundation"/>
<date/>
</front>
<annotation>(12:30min; animated; what bullying is and is
not)</annotation>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Stahl"
target="http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v41/n4/full/jibs200985a.html">
<front>
<title>Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in
teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work
groups</title>
<author fullname="G. Stahl" initials="G.K." surname="Stahl"/>
<author fullname="M. L. Maznevski" initials="M.L."
surname="Maznevski"/>
<author fullname="A. Voigt" initials="A." surname="Voigt"/>
<author fullname="K. Jonsen" initials="K." surname="Jonsen"/>
<date month="May" year="2010"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Journal of International Business Studies"
value="41, 690-709"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.85"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Joshi"
target="http://www.ilo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/download/unterlagen-ws1415/josh-roh-2009.pdf">
<front>
<title>The Role of Context in Work Team Diversity Research:
A Meta-Analytic Review</title>
<author fullname="A. Joshi" initials="A." surname="Joshi"/>
<author fullname="H. Roh" initials="H." surname="Roh"/>
<date year="2009"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Academy of Management Journal"
value="Vol. 52, No. 3, 599-627"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Div-Discuss"
target="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html">
<front>
<title>Diversity Discussion List</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2013"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Bully-Ser"
target="http://bullyonline.org/workbully/serial_introduction.htm">
<front>
<title>Serial Bully Traits</title>
<author fullname="Tim Field Foundation"
surname="Tim Field Foundation"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Div-DT"
target="https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/wiki/WikiStart#">
<front>
<title>Diversity Design Team wiki</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2013"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Kellogg">
<front>
<title>Better Decisions Through Diversity</title>
<author fullname="Kellogg School of Management"
surname="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"
target="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds">
<front>
<title>The Wisdom of Crowds</title>
<author fullname="Wikipedia" surname="Wikipedia"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="wikiHow"
target="http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Workplace-Bullying-and-Harassment">
<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>
</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"
target="www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/42893/WS_Bullying_Guide_Web2.pdf">
<front>
<title>Workplace bullying - prevention and response</title>
<author fullname="WorksSafe Victoria"
surname="WorksSafe
Victoria"/>
<date month="October" year="2012"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="MB-Misue"
target="http://thoughtsonliberty.com/three-common-ways-libertarians-misuse-myers-briggs-part-2-misunderstanding-the-feeling-preference">
<front>
<title>Three Common Ways Libertarians Misuse Myers-Briggs
Part 2: Misunderstanding the Feeling Preference</title>
<author fullname="Burger" initials="R."
surname="Rachel Burger"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Defensive"
target="http://www.people-communicating.com/defensive-communication.html">
<front>
<title>Defensive Communication</title>
<author fullname="Imelda Bickham" initials="I."
surname="Bickham"/>
<date day="2013"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IAOC" target="https://iaoc.ietf.org/">
<front>
<title>Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IAB" target="https://www.iab.org/">
<front>
<title>Internet Architecture Board</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IETF" target="https://www.ietf.org/">
<front>
<title>The Internet Engineering Task Force</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Y-H-Cybul"
target="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801920?hl=en&rd=1">
<front>
<title>Harassment and cyberbullying</title>
<author fullname="Youtube" surname="Youtube"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="L-H-Cybul"
target="https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593">
<front>
<title>LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines</title>
<author fullname="LinkedIn" surname="LinkedIn"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="F-H-Cybul"
target="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards">
<front>
<title>Community Standards</title>
<author fullname="Facebook" surname="Facebook"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IEEE-Cybul"
target="https://www.ieee.org/about/ieee_code_of_conduct.pdf">
<front>
<title>CODE OF CONDUCT</title>
<author
fullname="Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering"
surname="Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Wiki-SexHarass"
target="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment">
<front>
<title>Sexual harassment</title>
<author fullname="Wikipedia" surname="Wikipedia"/>
<date/>
</front>
<annotation>"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a
sexual nature..."</annotation>
</reference>
<reference anchor="SC-Cybul"
target="www.scouts.ca/cys/policy-bullying-and-harassment.pdf">
<front>
<title>Bullying/Harassment Policy</title>
<author fullname="Scouts Canada" surname="Scouts Canada"/>
<date/>
</front>
<annotation>"Bullying has traditionally been defined by three
elements: aggression (the intent to harm), a power
differential, and repetition"</annotation>
</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 05:04:19 |