On Nov 3, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. In effect I believe we’re delegating. so if you believe we’re doing to much you should account for that. A less temporary construct of the ombudsman should be expected construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don’t think it’s a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a lot of time on that until there is one for us to consider. I believe that the IESG can get this wrong, which is why we shouldn’t be dictating the detailed mechanics. > 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. >> ... >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail