Subject: Ombudsteam update

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:35:40 -0500

The IETF ombudsteam <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/> is a designated group of people who have been selected to handle reports of potential harassment in the IETF. The ombudspeople serve in support of maintaining an IETF environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect, per our Anti-Harassment Policy <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-anti-harassment-policy/>.

Earlier this week, Linda Klieforth stepped down from the ombudsteam. I would like to thank Linda for her foundational contributions to the team and for all she has done to help create a welcoming environment in the IETF.

Melinda Shore has graciously agreed to join the ombudsteam. Many thanks to Melinda for her willingness to take on this role in addition to her existing duties. Allison Mankin and Pete Resnick continue to serve on the team.  

As always, the ombudsteam can be reached at [email-masked] or at their individual addresses listed on the web page above. The IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures (RFC 7776) that govern the ombudsteam's operations can be found at <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776>.

Regards,
Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair

---

From: heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 17:43:01 +0000

Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:35:40PM -0500, IETF Chair:
> The IETF ombudsteam <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/> is a designated group of people who have been selected to handle reports of potential harassment in the IETF.

Why are these appointed rather than elected positions?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:08:34 -0000

See 3.2 of RFC 7776

The underlying assumption was that the team requires a skillset that is rare
in the IETF context and also hard to assess (we, as regular IETF
participants, lack the topic-specific knowledge to make choices between
candidates).

The IETF chair, therefore, is instructed by RFC 7776 to look for candidates
and take advice as widely as necessary in order to make selections and form
a team.

Section 3.8 tells you what to do if you believe there is a problem with the
way the IETF chair has made the selection, although I would encourage you to
first have a private email exchange with the IETF chair in this case.

Regards,
Adrian (co-pen-holder for RFC 7776)

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of heasley
Sent: 11 January 2019 17:43
To: [email-masked]
Cc: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ombudsteam update

Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:35:40PM -0500, IETF Chair:
> The IETF ombudsteam <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/> is a
designated group of people who have been selected to handle reports of
potential harassment in the IETF.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Jan 2019 14:20:42 -0500

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>> The IETF ombudsteam <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/> is a designated group of people who have been selected
>to handle reports of potential harassment in the IETF.
>

Beyond what Adrian said, the IETF has no elected positions.  

We have a randomly selected nomcom that chooses most of the other
positions, but the nomcom has no more expertise in personnel or
harassment issues than any other random set of IETF'ers.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:04:02 +0200

Hi Alissa,

I hope this ombudsteam procedure is working well with no issues. How does
the procedure monitor the time/delay of respond/action? I remember in 2017,
I send an email to its email and cc to one person's name mentioned in your
email. I did not get any reply (that email sent was ignored by both emails,
and is still waiting for reply with very long delay), I noticed then that
this ombudsteam is not working well as needed. Maybe there is a problem in
implementation of rfc7776 or the procedure needs to be update for better
practice.  IETF is about implementing procedures for best practices and for
the community needs.

Best Regards
AB

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:36 PM IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:

> potential harassment in the IETF. The ombudspeople serve in support of
> maintaining an IETF environment in which people of many different
> backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect, per our
> Anti-Harassment Policy <
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-anti-harassment-policy/>.
>
> Earlier this week, Linda Klieforth stepped down from the ombudsteam. I
> would like to thank Linda for her foundational contributions to the team
> and for all she has done to help create a welcoming environment in the IETF.
>
> Melinda Shore has graciously agreed to join the ombudsteam. Many thanks to
> Melinda for her willingness to take on this role in addition to her
> existing duties. Allison Mankin and Pete Resnick continue to serve on the
> team.
>
> As always, the ombudsteam can be reached at [email-masked] or at
> their individual addresses listed on the web page above. The IETF
> Anti-Harassment Procedures (RFC 7776) that govern the ombudsteam's
> operations can be found at <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776>.
>
> Regards,
> Alissa Cooper
> IETF Chair
>

---

From: heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:04:06 +0000

> Beyond what Adrian said, the IETF has no elected positions.  

ok, elected was a poor choice of words.  i did not know but 7776 tells
who appoints and why there was no discussion or mention of who was
under consideration.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:32:26 -0800

Hi,

> On Jan 14, 2019, at 4:04 PM, heasley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

To my mind the ombudsperson role is like a more sensitive analog of a WG chair role than it is like any of the positions we have for which open calls for nominees and candidate feedback are sought from the community. And in this particular case there was a bit of time pressure to find a community volunteer. We had a budgeting issue since Linda was employed by ISOC and under our new administrative arrangements that would have meant the IETF LLC would have needed to start reimbursing ISOC for her time and travel in 2019, which did not seem cost-effective.

I worked together with the existing ombudsteam to identify a few candidates whom the ombudsteam talked to before I made the appointment.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:38:33 +0000

Sounds like a tools sort of issue. Maybe they need a webform that opens a ticket for the reporter. That person can then check back in online for status. And on the backend the Ombudsteam can automatically report on issues reported over time, current issues open, and issues closed by resolution type (e.g. no action taken, 1:1 coaching, removal from position), etc. On the other hand, I suspect the volume of issues is quite low and that may fail to justify this sort of automation.

JL

From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:04 AM
To: ietf <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ombudsteam update

Hi Alissa,

I hope this ombudsteam procedure is working well with no issues. How does the procedure monitor the time/delay of respond/action? I remember in 2017, I send an email to its email and cc to one person's name mentioned in your email. I did not get any reply (that email sent was ignored by both emails, and is still waiting for reply with very long delay), I noticed then that this ombudsteam is not working well as needed. Maybe there is a problem in implementation of rfc7776 or the procedure needs to be update for better practice.  IETF is about implementing procedures for best practices and for the community needs.

Best Regards
AB

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:36 PM IETF Chair <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
The IETF ombudsteam <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/> is a designated group of people who have been selected to handle reports of potential harassment in the IETF. The ombudspeople serve in support of maintaining an IETF environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect, per our Anti-Harassment Policy <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-anti-harassment-policy/>.

As always, the ombudsteam can be reached at [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> or at their individual addresses listed on the web page above. The IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures (RFC 7776) that govern the ombudsteam's operations can be found at <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776>.

Regards,
Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:39:28 -0500

Hi, Absussalam,

I can't find the 2017 issue, but I did find the one in 2018, and not my
reply.  I recall sending you a reply.  I'm going to send you another one
now, with apologies since you did not receive it.  Also you should inform
me if you find a request from 2017.

Allison

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 04:04, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Melinda Shore has graciously agreed to join the ombudsteam. Many thanks
>> to Melinda for her willingness to take on this role in addition to her

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:47:17 -0500

By the way, I agree very much that the ombudsteam should maintain a
responsive service to the community (your broader point).  This is an
important commitment for us to make.

Allison
Member of Ombudsteam

P.S. apologies for leaving out some letters of your name in the first
message I sent to you, IETF, and IESG.  Typo :-(

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 13:39, Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 04:04, Abdussalam Baryun <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 19:21:48 +0200

Hi Allison,

Yes I have the email which was sent on Monday 9th October 2017 at 6:06 AM
to [email-masked], and [email-masked]. I only sent once to
those addresses and my email was not sent in 2018.

Abdussalam,
IETF Participant from Africa,

> Hi, Absussalam,

my name is Abdussalam, meaning serving God the peace,

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:11:29 -0500

Hi, Abdussalam,

You are right, I misread the date on the mail when I was writing yesterday
(I have a kind of calendar dyslexia).   I too have that mail, but what I
wrote yesterday is still the case.

Please let ombudteam know (adding back ombudsteam to this email) if you
have a continuing issue, as my mail said yesterday.

I will send you another message that is between you and me and my
colleagues in ombudsteam, because of the confidentiality rules in our BCP
(RFC 7776).

Allison

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 12:22, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>> I hope this ombudsteam procedure is working well with no issues. How
>>> does the procedure monitor the time/delay of respond/action? I remember in
>>> 2017, I send an email to its email and cc to one person's name mentioned in
>>> your email. I did not get any reply (that email sent was ignored by both
>>> emails, and is still waiting for reply with very long delay), I noticed
>>> then that this ombudsteam is not working well as needed. Maybe there is
>>> a problem in implementation of rfc7776 or the procedure needs to be update
>>> for better practice.  IETF is about implementing procedures for best
>>> practices and for the community needs.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> AB
>>>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:18:31 +0200

> have a continuing issue, as my mail said yesterday.

Yes I have a continuing issues, and the ombudsteam will be informed in the
coming days, however, the biggest problem/issue was the IPWAVE AD and
chair MUST follow up to make discussions easy and productive. My formal
public message was ignored by IETF AD office, then formal private message
ignored by ombudsteam, so I was powerless. It is strange that it is easy of
IETF-members/selected-members to ignore/drop formal
emails/messages/letters/requests in IETF/IESG.

IETF should update such procedure that gives that opportunity/error, so
that IETF becomes fair and treats all world communities equal.

> colleagues in ombudsteam, because of the confidentiality rules in our BCP

ok, this will be my last public message related to the subject, the purpose
was to help make procedures/RFCs fair/updated/working-right. However,
making things private/confidential without management can help issues to
grow with no fair solutions.

AB

>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 12:22, Abdussalam Baryun <
>> to [email-masked], and [email-masked]. I only sent once
>> to those addresses and my email was not sent in 2018.
>>
>> Abdussalam,
>>>>> Melinda Shore has graciously agreed to join the ombudsteam. Many
>>>>> thanks to Melinda for her willingness to take on this role in addition to
>>>>> her existing duties. Allison Mankin and Pete Resnick continue to serve on
>>>>> the team.
>>>>>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:02:00 -0500

Hi AB,

> On Jan 18, 2019, at 1:18 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:09 PM Allison Mankin <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Hi, Abdussalam,
> 
> You are right, I misread the date on the mail when I was writing yesterday (I have a kind of calendar dyslexia).   I too have that mail, but what I wrote yesterday is still the case.  
> 
> Please let ombudteam know (adding back ombudsteam to this email) if you have a continuing issue, as my mail said yesterday.
> 
> Yes I have a continuing issues, and the ombudsteam will be informed in the coming days, however, the biggest problem/issue was the IPWAVE AD and chair MUST follow up to make discussions easy and productive.

For people who do not know the context, this was AB’s mail

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/8aH6ikp6mIJ5BMIJApx6PqqyzPg

This was Tony Li’s mail that AB was responding to

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/iGhHmoJy2Ien_iyoOgd6I5gXzWM

> My formal public message was ignored by IETF AD office

????. I did respond on list to your message with my view

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/Lb84WgER7edzsJhp5cyjhxoYaxk

> , then formal private message ignored by ombudsteam, so I was powerless. 

I am not privy to the workings of the ombudsteam. I will let them respond to this.

> It is strange that it is easy of IETF-members/selected-members to ignore/drop formal emails/messages/letters/requests in IETF/IESG.

Once you escalated the message to the ombudsteam, it is for the ombudsteam to judge. If there were specific actions for the ipwave chairs or the IESG I am assuming we would have heard from the ombudsteam.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:25:35 +0000 (UTC)

"Fear, uncertainty and doubt" is an informal industry expressionunfamiliar to AB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

just as April Fools' Day was
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DBjxWy7JPiJHsENop5A2rnHzuqU
https://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf/2013-04/msg00097.html

this is a cultural misunderstanding, mostly, but thesecultural misunderstandings do seem to tend to escalate.

L. Lloyd Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood

      From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
 To: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> 
Cc: IESG <[email-masked]>; Ombudsteam <[email-masked]>; ietf <[email-masked]>
 Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 2:02
 Subject: Re: Ombudsteam update
   
Hi AB,

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:09 PM Allison Mankin <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi, Abdussalam,

ThanksSuresh

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:36:17 +0200

> "Fear, uncertainty and doubt" is an informal industry expression
You have no right to write on the list about me, while I am not the subject
but you are trying to make it. I am familiar more than you think, and I
know that I was disturbed in formal discussions with unformal usa words. It
is clear that IETF did ignore messages and I received number of apologies
you may not be familiar what it means.

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:06:04 -0800

Dear Abdussalam and Lloyd,

I too, in my ombudsteam role, think it wasn’t helpful to try to explain why
the term about “fear” was ok or common. Most, if not all, of the WG Chairs
and other leaders have had EDU team training that ironic idiomatic terms
should be avoided because of the many backgrounds of participating
engineers.

I will now send the IPWave WG Chairs a message asking them to underline
this principle to the WG mailing list and to the EDU team to remind WG
Chairs.

Abdussalam, send me and the ombudsteam a note and we can talk some more
about this.

Best,

Allison

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:36 PM Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> You have no right to write on the list about me, while I am not the
> subject but you are trying to make it. I am familiar more than you think,
> and I know that I was disturbed in formal discussions with unformal usa
> words. It is clear that IETF did ignore messages and I received number of
> apologies you may not be familiar what it means.
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:56:28 +0000 (UTC)

where did I say the term was okay or common? I simply provided background to a thread whose participants were talking past one another about fear.
Communicating with Americans is often hard work for non-Americans... lack of cultural awareness goes both ways.
but any expectation of "formal discussions" is imo very much at odds with the traditional conversational tone of IETF discussions.

Lloyd [email-masked]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019, 8:06 am, Allison Mankin <[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear Abdussalam and Lloyd, 
I too, in my ombudsteam role, think it wasn’t helpful to try to explain why the term about “fear” was ok or common. Most, if not all, of the WG Chairs and other leaders have had EDU team training that ironic idiomatic terms should be avoided because of the many backgrounds of participating engineers.
I will now send the IPWave WG Chairs a message asking them to underline this principle to the WG mailing list and to the EDU team to remind WG Chairs.
Abdussalam, send me and the ombudsteam a note and we can talk some more about this.
Best,
Allison
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:36 PM Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:

You have no right to write on the list about me, while I am not the subject but you are trying to make it. I am familiar more than you think, and I know that I was disturbed in formal discussions with unformal usa words. It is clear that IETF did ignore messages and I received number of apologies you may not be familiar what it means.

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:20:07 -0800

Lloyd,

I’ll find a reference to the deck that gives advice on style. It doesn’t
ask for formal language, just for some awareness by presenters and
participants, and openness to learning from each other.

Allison

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 1:57 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> where did I say the term was okay or common? I simply provided background
> to a thread whose participants were talking past one another about fear.
>
> but any expectation of "formal discussions" is imo very much at odds with
> the traditional conversational tone of IETF discussions.
>
> Lloyd Wood
> [email-masked]
>
> I too, in my ombudsteam role, think it wasn’t helpful to try to explain
> why the term about “fear” was ok or common. Most, if not all, of the WG
> Chairs and other leaders have had EDU team training that ironic idiomatic
> terms should be avoided because of the many backgrounds of participating
> engineers.
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:25 AM Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]
> <lloyd.wood@yahoo..co.uk>> wrote:
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:53:10 -0500

On 1/28/2019 4:56 PM, lloyd.wood=[email-masked] wrote:
> Communicating with Americans is often hard work for non-Americans...

And then there's "Communicating with Americans is often hard work for 
Americans" and  "Communicating with IETF participants is often hard work 
for everyone including IETF participants".

Just saying.

Regardless, colloquial English of both the British and American 
varieties tends to provide loan words into lots of other language and 
cultural contexts.  It's difficult for a English  (both native and 
non-native) speaker to sometimes know where the limits are and to what 
extent they apply to any given person.  I'd like to suggest that we 
don't make too much of this, avoid "words of the week", but not worry 
about terms we (community collectively) have been using for years.  And 
add a sentence to the Tao that suggests "when in doubt, google it or ask 
the speaker"  which I had to do when a recent random encounter with a 
Brit had me googling for the meaning of "have a butcher's" and not 
understanding why he was pointing at a magazine cover.

All technical communities have their own languages - that's just the 
reality.  Learning to become fluent in that language is just the cost of 
doing business.  Staying fluent is also part of the cost (cf the 
discussions on git/github/etc).

Later, Mike

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:34:19 -0500

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

See RFC 4144, Section 9.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:39:20 -0500

> > discussions on git/github/etc).

Actually, see RFC 4144, Sections 1-12...

I'd never seen this RFC before, but after reading Section 9 I went and read
the rest -- my standard advice to newcomers is "Read the Tao", but I think
it will now be "Read the Tao *and* RFC4144..." -- for those, like me, who
hadn't read this before, it is well worth the few minutes it will take to
read...

This falls into the category of "one of the good ones",
Ace.

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 17:43:40 -0500

On 29 Jan 2019, at 16:39, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:34 AM Donald Eastlake 
> <[[email-masked]](<mailto:[email-masked]>)> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Michael StJohns 
>> <[[email-masked]](<mailto:[email-masked]>)> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > ...
>>  >
> I'd never seen this RFC before, but after reading Section 9 I went and 
> read the rest -- my standard advice to newcomers is "Read the Tao", 
> but I think it will now be "Read the Tao *and* RFC4144..." -- for 
> those, like me, who hadn't read this before, it is well worth the few 
> minutes it will take to read...
>

Strongly agree!

--aaron