* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

REPUTE Working Group Wiki

I. Managing Scope and Tone

This replicates a notice sent on the working group mailing list:

( This notice is derived from a posting to the working group mailing list )

The topic being covered by the REPUTE working group is inherently difficult and has a long history of difficult participant behavior in previous IETF contexts.

This has tended to reduce participation by otherwise-valuable representatives of the community.

IETF process and culture is based on open participation. Anyone can participate in any working group. But this also means that participants must strive to be constructive.

This obviously means maintaining a professional demeanor, but it also means staying within scope. Failure in either produces a distracted and likely hostile environment. Which winds up meaning that the WG discourages participation and fails to move forward.

Anyone can have a bad day and fail in one way or the other.

Patterns of failure are another matter, and is where the chairs, acting as WG management, must act.

Some working groups are managed loosely because they're on relatively non-controversial subject matter, however the Repute Working Group is not one of those.

This message is being sent to ensure that participants are aware of the rules governing participation and enforcement procedures.

Here is the formal IETF documentation for procedures to enforce acceptable participation:

1. RFC 2418: IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures

> 3.3 Session Management
> ...
> To facilitate making forward
> progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject
> or defer the input from a member, based upon the following
> criteria:
>
> Old: 
>    The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved
>    and is redundant with information previously available;
>
> Minor 
>    The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
>    been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the
>    existing decision;
>
> Timing 
>    The input pertains to a topic that the working group
>    has not yet opened for discussion; or
>
> Scope 
>    The input is outside of the scope of the working group
>    charter.

2. RFC 3934 as it amends RFC 2418 section 3.2

> As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more
> individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in
> the opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process.
> Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be
> stopped immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage
> the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the
> offending individual.  If the behavior persists, the WG chair
> should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list.
> As a last resort and typically after one or more explicit
> warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director,
> the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of
> the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days...

Therefore

The REPUTE Working Group chairs will be actively managing the group's conduct with respect to any egregious behavior or any tendency towards participation that qualifies under the criteria listed under RFC 2418, Section 3.2 (as amended) or Section 3.3, and will use the enforcement procedures defined in RFC 3934 if necessary.

II. BOF and Introduction

The working group had a BOF, which included a basic introduction to the topic:

<‚Äčhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/repute.html>