On 3/9/15 6:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Pete" == Pete Resnick<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Pete> The short answer is that the IESG generally thought that
Pete> "crossing the streams" was a bad idea. Imagine that we do get
Pete> to the particular point of horror, that someone in leadership
Pete> has harassed someone in such a way that the Ombudsteam
Pete> concludes the only appropriate remedy is that they are unable
Pete> to attend future meetings or participate in list discussions,
Pete> *and* that person refused to resign their post. Even if they
Pete> keep the fact of the harassment confidential and simply said,
Pete> "I will be unable to attend meetings in the future for
Pete> personal reasons, nor will I be able to participate in WG list
Pete> discussions, but I still wish to remain as AD", that's really
Pete> plenty enough impetus for a recall committee to be formed and
Pete> remove the person from their post.
OK, well, that seems kind of inconsistent with the current text that
talks about recommending someone not be in a leadership position.
The current (version -06) text does not talk about recommending someone
not be in a leadership position. That text got removed after IESG
Evaluation before approval.
Also, there's another concern. Imagine sexual harassment on the part of
ADs in in-person interactions.
[...]
In some ways this approach forces the ombudsteam to exclude someone from
a meeting rather than what might be a lesser penalty of removing them
from a leadership position.
Do you want to force that?
First of all, a remedy as "penalty" is addressed in Section 5.1. The
*existence* of potential remedies can act as a deterrent, but the
*imposition* of a remedy is "to try to make sure that the incident does
not escalate and to ensure that a similar situation is unlikely to occur
with the same Respondent in the future" and specifically "is not to be
imposed for the purposes of retribution." Given that, and given that
section 5 says quite clearly that the remedies are a range, and can be
as simple as "discuss the situation with the Respondent and come up with
a plan such that there is no repeat of the harassment", it's not clear
to me that removing someone from a leadership position is a useful
remedy, likely to prevent future incidents, that other remedies (less
drastic than exclusion from meetings) would not more readily accomplish.
So I don't see any way in which this "forces" the Ombudsteam to exclude.
I think that most of my concerns would be addressed by adding a
statement indicating that the ombudsteam SHOULD maintain a procedure
explaining how they resolve conflicts between the desire for
confidentiality and the disclosures necessary to do their jobs.
To me that statement accomplishes two things not present in the current
text:
1) It acknowledges that there are such conflicts; I read the current
text and I see a bunch of stuff about absolute confidentiality, with no
acknowledgement that it can't quite be absolute.
2) Indicates where people can look to see current thinking on resolving
the conflict.
Section 4.1 requires the Ombudsteam to document its operational
practices. Should something like this be needed, I would expect it to be
a part of that documentation. You will also note that 4.1 says:
In all cases the Ombudsteam will strive to maintain
confidentiality for all parties including the very fact of contact
with the Ombudsteam.
"Strive to maintain" not not seem to be about "absolute
confidentiality", as you put it, so it's not clear what else needs to be
acknowledged in the text.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478