Hi Bjoern, Sorry for parsing you while being in a WG meeting. I think you are saying that *this* document should not lean on the IESG statement, but should be a standalone policy document. We believe we have achieved this by direct text rather than a normative reference. But we would be happy to hear exactly where we messed up. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 04 March 2014 11:25 > To: Pete Resnick; Adrian Farrel > Cc: IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version > > * Pete Resnick wrote: > >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. > > So, http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement.html says > > These messages represent the IESG's best effort to deal with specific > issues that have come up from time to time and are not meant to be a > way for the IESG to revise the established IETF processes. If at any > time someone feels that one or more of these messages represents a > misunderstanding of the intent of the relevant RFCs the issue should > be taken to the IESG mailing list for discussion. > > It seems to me the "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy" should have a relevant > RFC and not remain an IESG Statement and accordingly should be included > in the document. Particularily so objections to the text of the policy > can go through the IETF process, rather than being ignored. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/