Mary,
Thanks for taking the time and giving your input.
I take a couple of things away from your review...
1. We should state our expectation of Ombudsperson recusal. Not that the Ombudsperson would be anything other than wholly professional, but making the statement will help people to have the right expectations when they report incidents.
1a. Point 1 obviously speaks to the need for more than one Ombudsperson.
2. We should include a note about corporate anti-harassment policies. I think this is going to need a little thought, but it should be light (along the same lines as the legal note) and should probably simply acknowledge that people involved in the IETF may be subject to other anti-harassment policies such as from their employers, and that the IETF policy neither replaces nor stands in for such policies.
3. We need to come to some consensus about selection procedures. What I got from Dave's email (so what I think you are agreeing with) was:
- Should be IETF volunteers
- Should be more than one (he suggested 3)
- Should be trained
- Should have access to professional consultancy (HR and legal)
Since this is almost where Pete and I were with the issue, and since most of the comments we have received seem to have been along the same lines, I think we can probably converge on some words.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 March 2014 17:59
To: <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Comments on draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01
I've finally had a chance to take my first look at this document.
One thing that I find notably missing is any mention of corporate anti-harassment policies that may also apply to these situations. It's noted in section 1 that this document doesn't interfere with the legal handling of these issues. However, there's no mention of how these guidelines might relate or be superseded by corporate policies, which in the US, at least could very well apply to these situations. Most corporate policies apply outside the workplace, on business trips, etc. Thus, I think there needs to be some mention of how this relates to, interacts with or is superseded by corporate policies. I also think that the corporate guidelines could introduce some difficulties with regards to an ombudsperson who might have the same corporate affiliation as the Respondent. My understanding of the policies in many US companies would require that if the ombudsperson were at a higher level in the company than the respondent, that the ombudsperson would have a responsibility to report the incident to corporate HR.
Personally, I think the corporate policies provide a much large stick than do IETF policies, which is perhaps why some folks behavior is far worse in IETF than it ever would in a corporate environment. I also realize this is a very US centric view but given that a large number of IETF participants work for companies that have a US presence, I think it's relevant.
Not being a lawyer and having my only experience with corporate anti-harassment procedures being "avoid at all costs" (i.e., get a new manager rather than have to go to HR and complain about a boss), I don't think I have the right answers as to how this needs to be addressed, but I don't think it can be avoided.
I also agree with Dave Crocker's comments on the -00 with regards to how the Ombudsperson is selected, etc.:
Regards,
Mary.