Re: Last call and status of draft-farrresnickel-harassment

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

 



>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:

    John> That statement also raises the "management position" issue on
    John> which Brian and I have commented.  And the only "existing
    John> mechanisms" I know of amount to either recall (difficult,
    John> inappropriate, or useless for reasons I explained in that note
    John> plus the confidentiality problem Brian raised in his.

    John> Moving away from hair-splitting and to the bottom line...

    John> Because of the power and explicit and discretionary authority
    John> the community gives them, I think it is appropriate and
    John> probably necessary to hold ADs --and expect them to hold
    John> themselves-- to a higher standards than random IETF
    John> participants.  Consequently, if the Ombudsteam has a
    John> discussion about a harassment claim with an AD and the issue
    John> cannot be explained by the AD to the Ombudsteam's
    John> satisfaction, I'd expect the AD to either correct the behavior
    John> forthwith or resign.  If neither option is taken, if the
    John> community is really serious about eliminating harassment, I
    John> think the community wants the AD out of there and, for
    John> effective operation of the IESG, replaced quickly.  Put
    John> differently, having such an AD linger on for many months (see
    John> Note 1), doing whatever he or she was doing with (as Brian has
    John> pointed out) full community knowledge of what is going on, is
    John> not in the best interest of the IETF.

    John> I'm also completely unpersuaded by "well, the AD can be
    John> excluded from meetings and/or a mailing list".  Sorry, but the
    John> community simply doesn't need ADs who are forced to function
    John> without the full range of tools available to them.  Any AD who
    John> is unable or unwilling to cease or correct harassing behavior
    John> after the various interventions called for by the document
    John> _and_ unwilling to resign should probably be removed for bad
    John> judgment and insensitivity to the needs of WGs and document
    John> processing in the community... and that should not require a 5
    John> - 0 month (minimum) recall process.

I am in complete agreement with John's statement above.

In the interest of expedience I'm willing to settle for excluding nomcom
appointees  from meetings and mailing lists in this document and working
on figuring out the details behind removals in the near future.

However I do not believe the recall process is appropriate at all for
harassment and do not believe excluding people from meetings and mailing
lists is the right approach for removal long-term.  Excluding people
from meetings or mailing lists may well be the right approach for
harassing behavior in meetings or mailing lists.





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