On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with Michael. My early posts on this topic in previous years were to the same sentiment: all kinds of bodies in the public eye have harassment process, and I believe they go to competent agents who specialise in this field, and get clue.
I'm going to agree strongly with Elliot and highlight something:
"The COMMUNITY needs to be able to hold people accountable...." This means, that its just not the Chair, the IESG or the IAOC's wheelhouse, but the rest of us get a say, especially if the Chair, IESG or IAOC is excluding itself from applicability.
I made a suggestion elsewhere - I'm going to make it again. We, as techies, are not even remotely qualified to be given the power of "life" and "death" in terms of excluding people from participation ("it may impact people's livelihood") and adhoc training will not rectify this.
Please, can we hire professionals? Set the parameters, set the penalties (and have them apply to all); let the professionals deal with any issues that come up within those parameters; not involve the membership in any accusations of cross company, cross country, cross culture bias; and avoid internal witch hunts.
Mike
Why do we always pretend the IETF process is the best process for everything? I'm pretty sure when we stop doing emails and critique of drafts, we do things which engage with real-world activity which depend on competent professionals. I do it all the time. I don't expect to be able to fix every problem by invoking some ritualized process simply because I have that process.
We need to stop recursing over this and get skills in.
-George