On 18/03/2015 06:32, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker (fred) <fred@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Fred> Someone else suggested “subject to the recall procedures”; I > Fred> second that. Consider, if you will, what the process for > Fred> removing a document author would actually be? I think it > Fred> would, perhaps, be an appeal, not a recall. > > An appeal is clearly also the wrong approach for dealing with > harassment-related complaints. > > I continue to believe that it's desirable to allow the Ombudsteam to > remove anyone who is not subject to a recall procedure. It's hard to fault that logic. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that confidentiality will always be preserved in that case. There is running code. Where I live (New Zealand), there is very strong legal support for "name suppression" by a court. It's quite common for "a prominent New Zealander" to be charged with, and convicted of, a serious offence against another person but to retain name suppression, and it's a crime to reveal that name in any way. But this is a small country, and if you are interested, it generally takes about 5 minutes with Google to find the name. If I cited examples, I'd be breaking the law. The IETF is an even smaller country. A side effect is that victim's names sometimes leak too. I'm afraid that is an unavoidable risk, but it means that the solution becomes part of the problem. Brian