Subject: Re: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:59:52 -0700

Hi Eduardo,
At 23:19 31-08-2013, Eduardo A. Suarez wrote:
>I think both parties have to try to express clearly. Those who do not
>have the English as their native language should also try to do so.

Agreed.

>What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a
>mailing list someone's opinion is censored because misspell their
>ideas or opinions.

I'll try and rephrase the above.  In some mailing list discussions a 
person's ideas or opinions are ignored because the ideas or opinions 
are either not expressed clearly or the ideas or opinions are not understood.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 05:50:04 -0400

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
>On 8/31/13 10:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
>attempt to 
>> communicate clearly?
>
>Yes, but ...
>
>I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
>avoid highly idiomatic or stylized language - English that is not
>taught to non-native speakers.  It may be better to say something
>along those lines, although I don't think you can go too wrong
>in remind people to communicate clearly.  (This is not entirely
>unrelated to the seeking consensus issue)

That's true,  but the emphasis is in the wrong place. 

I think the behavior standard is "try to communicate clearly".  What you describe for native speakers is an example of things that help do that. 

Scott K

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 15:47:49 +0200

> are either not expressed clearly or the ideas or opinions are not

I always think the problem of not understanding a message in IETF is
not the fault of the transmitter, but it is the receiver's fault. The
receiver SHOULD make more efforts to understand, or send a reply to
request clarifications (specially in IETF WGs when discussing
technical issues). The fault cannot be the used-language or the way
the language is used, but the fault can be low performance of
communication or low purpose of such work at receiver end.

AB

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 12:08:50 -0400

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think the behavior standard is "try to communicate clearly".  What you
> describe for native speakers is an example of things that help do that.

I think Scott has put this perfectly, and it's exactly right.  The
main point is clear communication.  Everything else is advice about
how to achieve that.

> communication or low purpose of such work at receiver end.

I agree that the "receivers" should (and generally do, in my
observation, but see below) try hard to understand the "transmitter".
That said, I can assure you that if I should try to communicate with
you in your native language, all fault in the total communication
failure that would ensue would be mine.

We're all individuals, and we have different tolerance levels -- some
of us are more patient than others in trying to understand.  That
said, this is also a collaborative environment, where everyone needs
to do her part.  Native speakers need to use a level of English that's
likely to be accessible to non-natives, and to do the best they can to
understand what others are saying.  Non-native speakers need to do
what they can to improve their English skills.  Everyone has
responsibility.

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:22:36 -0700

> main point is clear communication.  Everything else is advice about

Both are needed.  Especially for a topic like this.

That is, for each point, the principle or concept needs to be stated, 
but then there need to be concrete, behavioral examples.

If the document only cites concepts or principles or other terms of 
abstraction, each of us is likely to interpret them /very/ differently. 
  Especially for a topic like this.

Worse, even if we interpret them in the same way, we might not 
understand what behaviors to attempt or to avoid, since that often 
requires some understanding of the differences between cultures and people.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:48:17 -0700

Hi Eduardo,
At 08:44 01-09-2013, Eduardo A. Suárez wrote:
>the problem is that when one is arguing against the opinion of another
>person, it is very easy for the recipient to respond "you do not write
>well and I do not understand" and so disqualify his opponent.

"You do not write well" is not a reason to reject 
an opinion.  "I do not understand" is also not a 
reason to reject an opinion.  Please note that, 
in theory, person Y (see opponent in the above) 
cannot disqualify the person X.  It does happen 
in practice as people do not use the process 
which is supposed to prevent all that from 
happening.  Another problem is that it is 
difficult to know how to use the process.

Speaking for myself, it is understandable that 
anyone in that situation will find it 
unbearable.  I think that it would be good if 
something which brings results is done about it this year.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 07:35:07 +1200

> requires some understanding of the differences between cultures and people.

That also applies to the listener. We should advise people to allow
for cultural differences and language differences when listening or
reading. Is this exchange from 2004 rude or not?

> 
>> I believe we are off-topic here.
> 
> You are off-topic from the beginning. 

   Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 01:03:46 -0700

At 23:15 31-08-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to
>communicate clearly?

The new text is as follows:

   Participants, particularly those with English as a first language, attempt
   to accommodate the needs of other participants by communicating clearly.

Participants try to accommodate each other.

>main point is clear communication.  Everything else is advice about

Yes.

>what they can to improve their English skills.  Everyone has

Yes.

At 09:22 01-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>abstraction, each of us is likely to interpret them /very/ 
>differently.  Especially for a topic like this.
>

Yes.

Brian Trammell explained it better than I could (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00289.html 
).  Melinda Shore commented about what to avoid (e.g. highly 
idiomatic language).

Somebody in the group, WG Chair, Area Director, or even a 
participant, might explain what is causing a communication 
problem.  At the other end someone who has a problem understanding 
what is being said can contact the WG Chair or Area Director 
privately so that they can step in and help.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 06:40:49 -0400

On Sep 3, 2013 5:47 AM, "S Moonesamy" <[email-masked]> wrote:
At the other end someone who has a problem understanding what is being said
can contact the WG Chair or Area Director privately so that they can step
in and help.

Because there are communication problems every few minutes, this seems like
a large burden to place on those who should be able to focus on keeping the
work as a whole running smoothly.  Someone who has a problem understanding
can speak to individuals privately. If they are rebuffed and want
intervention, then they could go to a WG chair... or perhaps to someone who
is part of a set of volunteers for helping in communication (we need a new
badge sticker).   In any case, please don't assign more small
responsibilities to the people who we depend on for pushing our work
forward.

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:26:27 -0400

>Participants try to accommodate each other.

Except for the part between the commas it's great. As written, it presumes that a mis-communication between a native speaker of English and someone who isn't is the fault of the native speaker.  I don't think this is appropriate. 

Scott K

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:44:00 -0500

On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with 
>> English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of 
>> other participants by communicating clearly. Participants try to 
>> accommodate each other. 

Hi, Scott,

Keeping in mind that we wouldn't be looking at this text in the first 
place, if it was easy to communicate ... ;-)

What I thought the parenthetical presumed, was that a native English 
speaker(*) might have more tools to use in helping repair 
mis-communication - for example, a native English speaker might have a 
larger vocabulary, if paraphrasing would help understanding, and might 
be more likely to use obscure English idioms(**) that don't translate 
easily into other languages and cultures. So, not that mis-communication 
is the native English speaker's fault, but that the native English 
speaker might be better positioned to make the first move to improve 
communication.

Spencer

(*) Obviously there are people, including people at the IETF, who 
learned English as a second (or third, or ...) language and now have 
better English communication skills than I do, so "native English 
speaker/English as a first language" might benefit from rephrasing, if 
the thought survives.

(**) My Chinese co-workers can conjure up 5000 years of rich idioms, and 
I enjoy hearing them, but they don't seem to translate them into English 
and insert them into conversations nearly as often as I insert idioms 
into conversations ...

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:50:04 -0400

Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Except for the part between the commas it's great. As written, it
>presumes that a mis-communication between a native speaker of English
>and someone who isn't is the fault of the native speaker.  I don't
>think this is appropriate.
>
>Hi, Scott,
>

I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the text.

Scott K

---

From: "Eduardo A. Suárez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 03:19:49 -0300

Hi,

Quoting S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>:
>
> The original phrasing is as follows:
>
>   "English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
>    native language of many IETF participants.  Native English
>    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."
>
> The draft reuses the text.  That text could be rewritten as:
>
>    English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
>    native language of many IETF participants.  Native English
>    participants attempt to accommodate the needs of other
>    participants by communicating clearly.
>

Regards, Eduardo.-

-- 
Eduardo A. Suarez
Facultad de Ciencias Astronómicas y Geofísicas - UNLP
FCAG: (0221)-4236593 int. 172/Cel: (0221)-15-4557542/Casa: (0221)-4526589

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---

From: "Eduardo A. Suárez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:44:35 -0300

Hi,

I think that isn't being applied the concepts of Jon Postel: "Be  
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others".

Eduardo.-

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:16:59 -0400

>> That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt
>> to communicate clearly?
>

I agree with Scott that the stuff between the commas doesn't belong here.

That is, it doesn't belong *here*; it can certainly go into a sentence
or paragraph with advice for native English speakers.  Consider
something like this instead:

   Participants must do their best to accommodate the needs of other
   participants by communicating clearly.  When faced with English that
   is difficult to understand, we must all make the effort to understand it
   nonetheless, engaging in conversation to clarify what was meant.
   Native English speakers, in particular, should be careful with the use
   of slang and cultural references that might not be well known to everyone.

That might not be exactly right; please try to understand me, and
tweak as necessary.

:-)

Barry

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:36:14 -0400

Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>attempt

I do think that's better. In my experience, once code of conduct type language is codified, eventually someone will try to use it as a hammer. It needs to be crafted with this assumption in mind. 

Thanks, 

Scott K

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:07:02 -0800

> I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the text.

*Blame*?

I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
for non-native speakers to understand and I've been grateful when
it's been pointed out.  Trying to figure out where things get confusing
and correcting that is a net positive for the organization.
Characterizing that process as "blame" is not.

We're supposed to be engineers.  Let's fix stuff.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:58:39 -0400

> We're supposed to be engineers.  Let's fix stuff.

I agree, but we're people too.  It's been my experience that if a code of 
conduct assigns primary responsibility for something to one party (in this 
case the native English speaker), it will later get used as a hammer whether 
it was intended as such or not.

I agree that trying to figure things out is a net positive.  What I want to 
avoid is someone making excuses claiming that since they aren't a native 
speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.

The responsibility to attempt to communicate clearly is equal.  Someone more 
fluent in English may have more tools at their disposal and may be able to 
contribute to the resolution of the problem more extensively, but that doesn't 
given them any more or less inherent burden.

Scott K

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 19:05:15 -0800

> speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.

I'd like to think that we're going to retain at least some small
vestige of common sense in the future (although it's looking
questionable).  I suppose one could argue the reverse, that by
failing to include this as a guideline we may be empowering
native English speakers to complain that non-native English
speakers are not making a good faith effort to understand
something.  But hey, let's be sensible, right?

In maritime navigation and other sets of "rules of
the road," it's generally the case that the vessels or vehicles or
skiers or whomever that are faster more maneuverable are responsible
for avoiding collisions with those who are less maneuverable.  I
think this is a pretty good rule of thumb.

Melinda

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:16:37 -0700

>    of slang and cultural references that might not be well known to everyone.

I'll try and come up with text to reflect the above and the other 
feedback about that part of the draft.

:-)

At 13:36 03-09-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I do think that's better. In my experience, once code of conduct 
>type language is codified, eventually someone will try to use it as 
>a hammer. It needs to be crafted with this assumption in mind.

My reading of the feedback is that the above is a concern.

>speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy