On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:06:41PM +0000, "Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Massy)" <julien.maisonneuve@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is troubling. In effect you're arguing that legal recourse is insufficient and that IETF needs to top-up whatever law enforcement and the justice system might decide. What would a judge think about that ? > This is not our role. Encouraging people to be nice is good, but designing rules to prevent extorsion, rape or rampage in the meetings should not be our concern, we have laws and law enforcement for that. This is completely backwards. Going to the law is an escalation that is very often not warranted when private actions would suffice, and that is what happens most of the time. If you have a series of parties and one of the attendees gets disruptive and breaks some dishes, you _could_ take them to court to force them to buy replacement dishes, but most people would just kick them out. If they repeat the behavior, they would be banned from future parties. Similarly, many conventions have policies of kicking out attendees who break their code of conduct or have multiple complaints against them, and that can escalate to banning them from future conventions, without necessarily going to the police. Often the harassed people don't even want to deal with the law, they just want to be left alone, and a private event has plenty of discretion to help make that happen. This is very very normal practice. It makes no sense to me even in the slightest to say that the law should always be the first resort. Or to call it "troubling" for organizations to use proportinal measures under their control to impose lesser penalties to try to mitigate bad behavior, rather than immediately escalating to courts which levy financial penalties or give prison time. -- Cos
