On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:15:13PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> The path is harassment->ombudsbeing, not harassment->wg chair. I
> would expect the ombudsperson to push back at this point unless
> something inappropriate was said. If someone says "that's a stupid
> idea, because FOO" and "because FOO" is valid, then it would be
> appropriate for the ombudsperson to say to the offending party, "you
> know, you didn't need to say that was a stupid idea—all you needed
> to say was 'because FOO.'". OTOH, if the offending party said "I'm
> going to cut off a deer's head and leave it in your refrigerator if
> you don't stop denying that FOO," then that would elicit a different
> response.
What about a slide presentation in a wg discussion in perpass which
included the following image?
http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/tag/nsa/
Bjoern Hoehrmann has already asserted he believes it would be
considered harassment.
- Ted