Re: Comments on draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01 - A mostly 'NO' view

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

 



I've read through the thread (as of my posting time), but am replying to Scott's note because it nudged my thinking.

On 03/18/2014 07:04 PM, 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've been part of a conversation about what might get reported to the community, but it was VERY early in the process (and I'm not sure even the conversationalists at the time converged).

I know the process as described in the draft focuses on deep confidentiality, but it might be helpful to allow some level of summary reporting, probably on a per-interval basis, something like "between IETF 90 and 91, there were three complaints, and all have been addressed".

I don't care what the interval is, even annually would be fine with me. And if the number is a Very Small Integer, I'd be fine with waiting until there is more to report, recognizing that statistics about small populations can be more revealing about individual cases than we would like them to be.

But it seems unhelpful if we have no idea whether the ombudperson was being used, or being stretched due to overuse, because no one can tell the community anything at all due to confidentiality constraints.

Spencer





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