On 3/20/15 11:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I agree with the points from Scott, Christian, and you John that it is > possible that confidentiality is not maintained on a case involving > a continuously bad actor. (Assuming we get to such a bad situation > to begin with, which I hope we wont.) Existing policy has addressed the problem of visibly bad actors in the past[1]. There no reason to expect that they won't do so in the future (nor should we abrogate responsibility for doing so). One can imagine a scenario where ombudspersons and community participants are independently pursing amelioration of a problem. there doesn't seem to be a reason why the acitivities would not occur independently in such a case. > My question to you though is what effect do you believe that observation > should have on our procedures? Are you suggesting that they should > not by default be confidential? > > Jari > [1] - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38293.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature