Hi,
The previous discussion of an anti-harassment policy was based on a cut
of a draft posted in an email by Jari. In order to get a good sense of
changes and change-control, we have posted a -00 version that contains
the same text. We have also moved forward with a -01 revision to pick
up some of the issues raised on the list. There are, as I'm sure you're
aware, a number of open issues as well, but we felt it would be helpful
to make some forward progress.
Adrian and Pete.
==Issues Resolved==
Replace "Target" to cover the fact that the person who suffers
harassment may not have been specifically targeted. The word "Victim"
was suggested, but the authors feel that word is too judgmental on a
number of levels. There was also some email preferring the word "Target"
until harassment had been established. We have chosen the word "Subject".
Added the definition of harassment as used in the original IESG
statement. There was also a request to provide a more-detailed
definition, but the authors feel this would distract from the purpose,
lead to endless appeals that a specific action was not covered by the
document, and would detract from the Ombudsperson's judgement.
We noted the suggestion to include a definition of the relevant training
to be given to the Ombudsperson. We recognize that neither the IETF
chair nor the newly appointed Ombudsperson will have a well-formed
opinion on this, yet we feel that providing a list here will be too
rigid and not open to new needs or new training schemes. We have,
therefore, changed the text to make this a determination to be made with
assistance of professionals.
Various proposals were made regarding the details for handling of
complaints. We made the definition of these details the responsibility
of the Ombudsperson.
==Changes not Made==
Abdussalam request s/Reporter/PH Reporter/ where PH means Potential
Harassment. The authors feel that this is not necessary. The whole
context of the document is harassment, and the definition explains the
precise meaning of the term.
Wrt "Respondent" Abdussalam said "This should explain his/her respond
and to whom he/she responding to." The remainder of the document
explains the interaction between the Respondent and the Ombudsman. The
Respondent is responding to the claim of harassing behavior and is
directing that response to the Ombudsman. There is no need to put all of
the explanation into the definition of the term.
Abdussalam commented that "There should be diversity, so if a harassing
is related to a race then the ombudsperson should not be in same race".
The text already suggests that the appointment of Ombudspersons may
consider elements of diversity, and the authors believe that the
diversity issue has far too many facets and elements to enable a team of
trained Ombudspersons to have nothing in common with any potential
Reporter, Respondent, or Subject. The Ombudsperson is expected to be
professional about their work. The appeals process may be used to catch
exceptional cases of alleged or apparent bias by the Ombudsperson.
Abdussalam requested inclusion of other specific potential remedies and
grades of remedies. The authors believe that it is better to represent
the ends of a spectrum and allow the Ombudsperson to select the
appropriate remedy. The text already makes this clear.
SM suggested severely trimming Section 3.1 just to say where the
responsibility lies and leaving out the options, flavors, and
commentary. This is a good point which has a lot of merit. However,
the authors feel that there is benefit in making suggestions and giving
context for the people who have to execute these processes in the future.
We looked carefully at the discussion of the term Ombudsperson. While
agreeing that it is not a word with a long history, and feeling that it
is somewhat clumsy in its attempt to not say "man" we did not hear any
arguments that significantly swayed us (thanks, John, for the
species-ist comment) we have retained the term complete with its definition.
==Issues Still Open==
Should the Ombudsperson be a fixed size team defined in this document?
A team of three was suggested.
Should the Ombudsperson (all of them) be selected from the IETF
community, or should wider choice be allowed? There was some suggestion
about restricting to the community although no measure of previous
community involvement was suggested.
Where should the Ombudsperson go for professional and legal advice?
Should there be retained professionals to supply advice on an on-demand
basis?
Who appoints the Ombudsperson? Who removes them? Who reappoints? Is this
too much to expect of the IETF chair?
How to handle the case that the person responsible for appointing the
Ombudsperson is the Respondent.
To whom are appeals made?
How to handle the case that someone on the appeals body is the
Respondent or otherwise involved in a case.
Should the pre-remedy output of the Ombudsperson be a "sanitized
summary" of all events as agreed by the Reporter and Respondent (and the
Subject if an individual exists)?