-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/03/15 10:03, Jari Arkko wrote: >> new: The Ombudsteam MAY ask a respondent to consider resigning >> from an IETF management position. The Ombudsteam May remove a >> respondent from a working group or document editor position. >> While this document does not create additional procedures >> permitting a nomcom appointee be removed, the Ombudsteam can >> exclude a respondent from meetings and mailing lists and other >> activities, making it impossible for them to carry out their >> appointed tasks. I'm quite uneasy with us saying that the Ombudsteam may remove editors or similar, and especially with us saying that but not saying how it might be done in practice. I also think we ought not be so focused on remedies that involve role-changes, since I think less dramatic remedies will be far more common (or I hope so). I'd therefore suggest we focus more on what the Ombudsteam are allowed to communicate, so I'd suggest: NEW new: " The Ombudsteam MAY ask a respondent to consider resigning from an IETF management position or from a working group or document editor position. To the extent required in order to ensure a remedy in encforced, the Ombudsteam are allowed to (where absolutely necessary) reveal some details of their investigation. In doing so, the Ombudstream must only reveal details that the Subject or Reporter agree may be revealed. The intent here is to allow the Ombudsteam flexibility in how they get remedies enforced - in practice, in order to enforce some remedies whilst preserving as much confidentiality as possible, (in particular for a Subject) the Ombudsteam may need to convince someone not involved in the situation that e.g. a change in role or organisation is needed. While this document does not create additional procedures permitting a nomcom appointee be removed, the Ombudsteam can exclude a respondent from meetings and mailing lists and other activities, making it impossible for them to carry out their appointed tasks. " I'd be fine with any wordsmithed version of the above that avoids getting into too much mechanical detail. Cheers, S. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCrNfAAoJEC88hzaAX42ijbUH/A6+0k8YFC5mwz5CGHxr7xPO UcfbKwTLl3fyjHMJDekiNBmgdV288JLnipHkevk/H2moti5YtHerc8gy5aXM/vV6 PvBdkcA6o/jYlc8WscE+B+RU8o3QBfyvo8NGzAyfmeOdnTr4eT4u1QQ/TJXjo7Ol dEyaAkv3kSovB9Ov3CRh6Jj4fyoOiNBztbMm2Xt0yi/BJhoT+y/xdyU9t4z4dPEQ e39CgZ7X5MQc2OY2H39NhMo2drIUHYqJkZItiI2qW/UoSDUxvtHWq07jWLPWNAt8 L8Sp9X/9w6QC09B+H0IHFAYlIZHlw0KKAYv3LMABvoT/Nnjy/m3Dnc15HguekCM= =xQ9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----