On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:37PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:Actually, looking at the policy more closely, I believe it shouldn't
>
> My reaction to this is that it seems to trivialize types of
> real-world harassment that are quite common (although hopefully not
> common in the IETF). If this image were the worst "harassment" that
> our ombudsperson had to deal with, that would seem to me to be very
> good news indeed.
be a problem and Bjoern Hoehrmann's assertions are specious. To quote
from the policy:
Harassment is unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior, in
particular speech and behavior that is sexually aggressive or
intimidates based on attributes like race, gender, religion, age,
color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation,
or gender identity.
How does this policy help if there is no identity known by the one who abuses other identified people? Usually harrassment will come from people that hide their identity, gender, religion, race, etc, because they don't want policies to affect their behavior/future, or most important their real-work or real-title or real-reputation in the IETF or in its WGs (the system policy attacker likes to have more faces/addresses instead of more hats/authorities). Therefore, IMHO, there is still a problem with this anti-harrassment policy is not solving very much in facing the allowance of anonymous postings without policies related to anonymous posting. I suggest to make a policy for anonymous then this anti-harrassment will have better value, or make them joined in one policy.
AB