On 17/03/2015 10:57, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> Public vs. private is entirely orthogonal to 'formally powerful' vs.
> 'has leverage but no formal authority'.
>
> By way of example:
>
> A document writer has made statements to a participant that violate
> the boundaries acceptable to the Ombud team. The statements were made
> in private, but have been sufficiently verified. The Ombud feels that
> the document writer needs to be removed from any position of leverage in
> the IETF, other than "regular participant".
>
> Currently, it's the Chair(s) who have the authority to remove that
> person, not the Ombud. But confidentiality constrains the Ombud
> possibly from making the request and certainly from explaining why.
Right. And the only solution that I can see is what would happen
inside a company in such a situation: extend the envelope of the
confidential discussion to include the person(s) with that
authority.
Brian
> d/
>
> ps. Extra credit: Note that the confidentiality thing prevents any
> sort of persistent application of a decision. There's no way to bar
> someone from being a document writer going forward, even if we figure
> out how to handle the immediate situation.