--On Sunday, 03 November, 2013 16:59 -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 04:48 PM, SM wrote:
>> I agree with what Dave Crocker and John Klensin wrote (re.
>> the two messages on the thread). The public record does not
>> show that there were responses to the questions which were
>> raised. The policy might be viewed as being dictated instead
>> of one which people have understood and have agreed to.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what happens if the organization is
> unable
> to come to consensus on an anti-harassment policy?
>
> One of the problems that I think we're facing and that we're
> not
> dealing with is that consensus processes are not a very good
> way
> to protect the rights of the minority, marginalized, etc. This
> should not be construed as an endorsement of the IESG going off
> and unilaterally developing a policy without much input from
> the
> body, but I am saying we've got a problem around this kind of
> thing.
Melinda,
Let me see if I can be both brief and clear:
* I think the harassment problem is real
* I believe that the IETF would be better off if there
were some systematic mechanism for dealing it is and
discouraging incidents.
* I believe that, as policies go, the IESG's proposed
language and approach are about as good as we are going
to get without actual experience in the community.
* I believe that my opinion on the above is a single
voice in the community, not a source of authority, no
matter how much I believe in it.
I also believe that
* we cannot have procedural rules for every situation and that
there are some situations in which the costs and risks of
inaction exceed the both risks of picking a solution in the
absence of consensus and the costs of waiting for a perfect
solution to emerge. And that
* unless we are going to get completely consumed by trying to
have a procedure to cover every case and mechanisms for forcing
consensus in matters of taste, the IESG needs very broad
authority to make up an apply rules to deal with conditions that
are both sufficiently important and sufficiently unusual.
However, unless we are willing to accept the IESG a oligarchy or
privy council, even if not as king, then I think the community
needs to require that the IESG explain the reasons why they
believe that such extraordinary and/or preemptive actions are
necessary and that the IESG must be willing to be strictly
accountable for those decisions.
I am also very concerned --because I'm paranoid and worry about
such things-- that, were the IETF ever to apply sanctions
against someone who was inclined and had the resources to
strongly push back and the mechanism used to define the
procedures was irregular and violated our basic rules, we could
find ourselves with far more difficult problems than whether or
not there was enough insurance to protect IESG members.
Precisely because I think the problem is both significant and
important I want make sure that whatever remedies are adopted
are considered and adopted with careful attention to our rules
for how decisions are made and ratified.
That is all.
john
That is all. This is _not_, for me, about the requirement, the
underlying issues, and
>
> Melinda
>
>