On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:36 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Monday, 04 November, 2013 09:16 -0800 Dave Crocker > <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 11/4/2013 8:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >>> It is clear that there is no >>> consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely >>> that one will emerge. >> >> FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some >> example text, I've heard similar assertions offlist and want >> to note that I believe this conclusion is premature. >> >> There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to >> pursue IETF rough consensus on specific text for this polichy. >> >> Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not >> previously announced, and b) is entirely artificial. While >> pursuing this topic expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been >> given no basis for deciding that it had to be in place by this >> week. >> ... > > I agree with most of this and claim that most of my comments > apply whether one assumes that we can reach consensus on text or > not. Part of the difference in our perspectives/ assumptions is > that your note seems to assume that we are in agreement on > principles and merely need to agree on text. I believe that, > if we did agree on principles, it is reasonably likely that we > could reach rough consensus on text. > > I don't think we are there yet. In particular, I've seen no > convergence about whether it is appropriate to discuss sanction > and what such sanctions might be. The IESG statement includes what seems like the logical terminus of that. namely exclusion of a participant from IETF activites. We have some experience with actions like this associated with mailing list disruption, that form of disruptive behavior is dealt with 3683 actions. It seems entirely inappropriate to process harassment complaints through a public process, to avoid reputional damage to either the accuser or the accused, public retaliation, or engagement in fighting these things out via public opinion which is damaging to everyone inlcuding the IETF. > I've seen no convergence > about whether an ombudsperson model is viable and, if it is, > whether there is a practical "training" model for folks within > the community and a reasonable model for how such people might > be appointed. The domain skillset is outside that of the internet standards process. Historically such people are drawn from outside the community they serve. I imagine that domain specific training would originate outside the IETF. > In each case, objections or concerns that seem > sensible have been raised about the direction in which the IESGs > appears to be headed. > > YMMD about those concerns (and others), but I suggest that there > is at least a reasonable hypothesis that we are nowhere near the > point at which there is enough agreement about principles to > make agreement about text particularly meaningful. On the on the contrary, I think it’s reasonable to expect the interim ombudsperson’s contact information and the communication channel is important as useful as is the the IESG statement however much refinement may be required to have something that we can live iwth long-term. > > john > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail