Jari Arkko wrote:
I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very
few situations where these procedures are needed, but they are
needed. I thank you for your help and respectful input into this
difficult but important discussion.
I want to thank the authors, and the Chair, for doing the work to define
a harassment policy. Even if it is never used, the fact that it exists
demonstrates a commitment to dealing with harassment complaints in a
prompt and fair fashion, and that has a positive effect.
This document does not attempt to precisely define behavior that
falls under the set of procedures identified here. In general,
In my view, a successful harassment policy needs to do two things:
1) Clearly establish what is unacceptable behavior.
2) Clearly indicate whom to go to for help.
Section 4 satisfies (2) adequately. This statement, however, indicates
that you are punting on (1). Earlier, the draft references
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>,
which uses much more definitive language on what constitutes harassment.
I would hope we could get IETF consensus on language of that nature,
defining what is clearly unacceptable, even if we wish to make
allowances for culture and leave some room for gray areas and borderline
cases.