On 03/19/2014 12:04 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > Re ombudsperson busy-ness: I would expect a flurry of activity due to pent > up concern, whether legitimate or not. People will quickly learn what the > ombudses and the system are capable of and think is important. I hope not. My understanding is that the intent is not to provide a new venue for whining (which we as a community constantly do) but rather as a mechanism for handling serious incidents of harassment that aren't dealt with via our current PR-action etc. processes. And yes, there's a blurry line there somewhere but if that distinction is not almost crystal clear, then it needs to be. There should be no complaining about the Hawaii venue to the ombudsbody for example. OTOH, if there are historic incidents of harassment that are brought to the ombudsleute then that is different and would be a valid flurry but I would hope/guess there aren't a lot of those. (I could be wrong in that of course.) S.