joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:36 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > 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. In light of recent events, I would have to call that experience "mixed". > 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 couldn't agree more. > > 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. I'd say this approach offers the best possibility of success. That said, my past experience with "trained ombudspersons" has been considerably shy of stellar, and as such I'm not optimistic of a good outcome here. And I would hesitate to assign blame for this outcome. This is one of those jobs where things are boring and routine right up to the point where they aren't, and then all hell breaks loose. This is a very difficult job profile to satisfy. > > 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. I have to say this sounds a little bit slapdash to me. Ned