Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The ombudsperson's report is important because the draft mention the possibility of IETF chair to remove such ombudsperson, or complaints against ombudsperson by subject or respondent. The ombudsperson report is for directors only. Such report is good for IESG and IAB and IETF chair. 

AB

On Thursday, March 13, 2014, Loa Andersson wrote:
All,

I find this reporting business becoming more and more orwellian, at
least reading the mail below.

The way it work today is that wg chairs are running wg meetings and
mailing lists. We take care of any harassment that we see and deal with
it locally. Realistically I've seen no real harassment cases, but maybe
one or maybe two cases where I as wg chair told people to behave over
the last 10 years. And like other things that I can handle as a wg chair
I don't want to "report"!

I can see that an ombudsman is a good safety net and support for the
wg chairs, but as all safety nets it should never be used. Adding
a "reporting everything" clause is just plain stupid. I guess that the
ombudsman will be smart enough to understand what needs to be brought
to IAB, IESG or ISOC. We don't want to make a bird flock of a very
small feather.

/Loa

On 2014-03-13 11:00, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
My last comment for this new draft-01:

draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01


AB/ discuss/ Ombudsperson may receive many reports from community for
such incident. Is the ombudsperson report per subject or per
respondent? As if one respondent harasses two subjects what will be the
report/decision or if two/more respondents harassing one subject what
will be reported/decided.

AB/discuss/ I suggest ombudsperson to report per subject not per
respondent. However, should include reference to other subjects if
harassing is related by same respondent or same harassing object. Per
subject is best because it focuses the anti-harassing actions and
conclusion to respect and protect each subject (subjects may be
different even if they had same harassing respondent or same harassing
object). The subjects may have different reactions.

Therefore, suggest:

ADD/ in section 4
The ombudsperson MUST report/document all harassment/anti-harassment
actions and his/her actions and decisions and summaries that report with
conclusion and recommendation. The ombudsperson report,
1) will summaries are reporters information per subject but not per
respondents and not per harassment object, 2) will include actions and
conclusions with dates and time, 3) will include final anti-harassment
decision.

ADD/ in section 5
The ombudsperson SHOULD report his/her actions after execution but
SHOULD report final anti-harassment decisions before presented to
subject or respondent.

Thanks. My Best Wishes.

Salam,

AB

On Monday, March 10, 2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

    Bonjour, Ni Hao, and Hallo,
    (greatings used in some IETF individuals meeting :-)

    IMHO the draft should encourage and recommend progress in WGs and
    progress between participants social skills problems (may be in
    introduction). If we replace shooting style/behavior with forgiveness
    style/behavior, then such participation style will help progress for
    more people politely setting their output tone or messages. Therefore
    more IETF input participation and diversity.

    Adding section related to Assisting Subject and Respondent :

    AB> the draft may need some thing that helps both sides, as assistance
    in their plans and thoughts while they are in such situation. The
    Ombudsperson may need volunteers (close friends to both sides) to help
    reduce the HEAT. Please note that Subject MAY call the police, which
    we may not prefer because we MAY be able to solve the issues
    internally in IETF. Therefore, having a section to promote internal
    volunteering within IETF makes us more social and more proactive.

    Adding suggestion into draft:

    under (5.Remedies):

    AB>suggest to add text>
    If the decision was to give the respondent full activity rights, then
    the respondent MUST apologies in public to the subject and to the
    community of such possible harassment. This will help the main goal of
    anti-harassment which is that all work together within healthy
    environment to encourage participation and diversity.

    under (5.Remedies):

    The draft paragraph>
        However, the Ombudsperson has ultimate
        responsibility for the choice of remedy.

      AB>discussing> the Ombudsperson SHOULD consider and to discuss the
    subject request remedies to get better results of his/her final
    Ombudsperson remedy choice, as how to make both (subject and
    respondent) in future be able to work with each other and forgive each
    other and how to help the Internet-community/Internet-societies to
    work with both of them. The aim of Ombudsperson remedy choices is to
    consider the IETF vision, diversity and objectives but also to protect
    subjects to any such harassment objects within IETF and in the future.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please note that I was requested by the author to post/share my
    thoughts in the IETF list to make it in one place. However, I prefere
    the diversity list so I send a copy to it as well.

    Salam,
    (my personal used greating :-)

    AB

    On 3/7/14, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
     > Adding suggestions;
     >
     > Under (5. Remedies):
     >
     > AB/ text suggest/add/
     > If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is
    publicly
     > evidence) after the rep
--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]