James, Thanks for reading, supporting, and commenting. I think you have raised valid points. They're not on the main path, but they are close enough to it to warrant some thought. I'll talk with Pete and see whether we can concoct a line or two. Cheers, Adrian From: James Woodyatt [mailto:jhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Everyone— Having reviewed I-D.farrresnickel-harassment, I have a comment, but first I want to express my vigorous support for this effort to establish anti-harassment procedures in IETF. It occurs to me that the Lead Ombudsperson has a variety of functions related to the application of remedies, and the draft doesn't clearly indicate what happens when the term of service ends for a Lead Ombudsperson with unresolved cases. It seems obvious that the draft intends to leave this policy for the Ombudsteam to set, and I suppose that's adequate, but I think the draft would be improved if Section 3.7 were to make explicit note of that. You know, so as to remind the Ombudsteam that they really need to plan for that, because it's a thing that will happen. I can also imagine one scenario where the procedures in the draft might become troubled. Consider the case where a Reporter informs the Lead Ombudsperson they believe another Ombudsperson should recuse themselves, then later, before the case is resolved, that Lead Ombudsperson is removed from the Ombudsteam. If that scenario happened to me, then I'd very much want to be consulted in the selection of a replacement for the Lead Ombudsperson for my case. Perhaps Section 3.7 should say something to the effect that the Ombudsteam shall in each case select a replacement for the Lead Ombudsperson from among its members with the agreement of the Reporter. |