Re: Anti-harassment policy and ombudsperson

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/3/2013 2:22 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
As has been previously discussed, the IESG is setting up an
anti-harassment policy for the IETF.


Jari,

I've been considering a posting like this for some months. Your timing is therefore unfortunately fortuitous...


From my reading of the public responses to this initiative, there does indeed appear to be strong community support for pursuing an anti-harassment policy.

However...

There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses, and even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough consensus for the text you've just announced.[*]


     In formal terms, it's not at all clear (to me, at least) that the
     IESG has the authority to declare something like an IETF-wide
     anti-harassment policy by fiat, no matter how laudable the effort.

What was -- and remains -- needed is for the IESG to work through feedback issues publicly and on the record, the same as any working group needs to do, and then to issue a formal Last Call and to require explicit and informed statements that produce a clear sense of active community rough consensus in support.

I'm am quite confident that anti-harassment is a topic that will get that support. But really, the IESG hasn't done the work that's needed yet, no matter how excellent or poor the latest text might be.

d/

[*] This only the latest of what I believe is is a relatively long-standing pattern for IESG and IAB documents, to be very selective in responding to feedback and then to summarily decide on final forms. The IAB probably has the formal authority to behave that way, independent of whether it is advisable. I believe the IESG rarely, if ever, does.

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]