FWIW, I largely agree with Dave. I think the motives here are entirely appropriate, but the IESG's handing down dicta is questionable -- and could be quite problematic if a situation appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education. To the extent to which there is concern in the community that the IESG has become too large a job that thereby excludes people who ought to be candidates (as suggested by other/earlier threads), the community should be consulted on whether these are good tasks for the IESG to take on, independent of the details of the documents. It may also be useful to remind people who are convinced that the IESG has consistently gotten these sorts of things either right or wrong that this is the right season for explaining one's position to the Nomcom. best, john --On Sunday, 03 November, 2013 14:55 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. >...