< draft-ietf-poisson-code-03.txt		draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt >
	Internet Engineering Task Force S. Harris		A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
	INTERNET-DRAFT Merit Network
	June 20, 2001
	IETF Guidelines for Conduct
	<draft-ietf-poisson-code-03.txt>
	Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
	of Section 10 of RFC2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as
	Internet-Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
	months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
	documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
	Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
	"work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	Abstract
	This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in
	the Internet Engineering Task Force. The Guidelines recognize the
	diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect,
	and stress the broad applicability of our work.
	Introduction
	The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a broad cultural
	diversity of peoples, ideas, and communication styles. The Guidelines
	for Conduct inform our interaction as we work together to develop
	multiple, interoperable technologies for the Internet. All IETF
	participants aim to abide by these Guidelines as we build consensus in
	person, at IETF meetings, and in e-mail. If conflicts arise, we resolve
	them according to the procedures outlined in BCP 25.
	Principles of Conduct
	1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues
	at all times.
	IETF participants come from diverse origins and backgrounds and
	are equipped with multiple capabilities and ideals. Regardless
	of these individual differences, participants treat their
	colleagues with respect as persons--especially when it is
	difficult to agree with them. Seeing from another's point of
	view is often revealing, even when it fails to be compelling.
	English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the		BCP 54
	native language of many IETF participants. Native English		RFC 3184
	speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly and to limit
	the use of slang in order to accommodate the needs of all
	listeners.
	2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without		Title: IETF Guidelines for Conduct
	finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea.		Author(s): S. Harris
			Status: Best Current Practice
			Date: October 2001
			Mailbox: srh@merit.edu
			Pages: 4
			Characters: 7413
			SeeAlso/Updates/Obsoletes: None
	We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through		I-D Tag: draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt
	intimidation or ad hominem attack. Or, said in a somewhat more
	IETF-like way:
	"Reduce the heat and increase the light"		URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3184.txt
	3. IETF participants think globally, devising solutions that meet the		This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction
	needs of diverse technical and operational environments.		in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The Guidelines recognize the
			diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual
			respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.
	The goal of the IETF is to maintain and enhance a working,		This document is a product of the Process for Organization of Internet
	viable, scalable, global Internet, and the concomitant problems		Standards ONgoing Working Group of the IETF.
	are genuinely very difficult. We understand that "scaling is the
	ultimate problem" and that many ideas quite workable in the small
	fail this crucial test. IETF participants use their best
	engineering judgement to find the best solution for the whole
	Internet, not just the best solution for any particular network,
	technology, vendor, or user.
	4. Individuals who attend Working Group meetings are prepared to		This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
	contribute to the ongoing work of the group.		Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
			improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
	IETF participants who attend Working Group meetings read the		This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
	relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and e-mail archives beforehand,		Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
	in order to familiarize themselves with the technology under		should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
	discussion. This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as		added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
	e-mail archives can be difficult to locate and search, and it		be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
	may not be easy to trace the history of longstanding Working
	Group debates. With that in mind, newcomers who attend Working
	Group meetings are encouraged to observe and absorb whatever
	material they can, but should not interfere with the ongoing
	process of the group. Working Group meetings run on a very
	limited time schedule, and are not intended for the education
	of individuals. The work of the group will continue on the
	mailing list, and many questions would be better expressed on
	the list in the months that follow.
	Acknowledgements		Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
			an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
			help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
	Mike O'Dell wrote the first draft of the Principles for Conduct, and		To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
	many of his thoughts, statements, and observations are included in this		Subject: getting rfcs
	version. Many useful editorial comments were supplied by Dave Crocker.
	Members of the POISSON Working Group provided many significant additions
	to the text.
	Author's Address		help: ways_to_get_rfcs
	Susan Harris		Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
	srh@merit.edu		author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
	Merit Network, Inc.		specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
	4251 Plymouth Rd., Suite C		unlimited distribution.echo
	Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785		Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
	Phone: (734) 936-2100		RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
	Fax: (734) 647-3185		Authors, for further information.
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	101 lines changed or deleted		33 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/