Dan,
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, March 22, 2015 9:58 am, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Would it be possible for everyone posting about this draft to
> consider - for even just a day - that he or she might in fact
> be the SUBJECT of the harassment - instead of trying to
> figure out how to game the system assuming that he is
> an unrepentant respondent.
>
> While the joke goes that "true friends help you bury the body",
> I earnestly hope that we aren't trying to figure out how people
> can successfully accomplish manslaughter and not have it
> raise to the level of murder - nor pretending that the SUBJECT
> of the harassment isn't the one wrongfully impacted.
>
> For once, consider that if you don't know anyone who has been
> harassed (not necessarily at the IETF) and have not been
> harassed - then (a) you PROBABLY aren't listening or asking
> the right questions and (b) you aren't the focus of why this needs
> to be handled.
If you haven't realized that non-governmental committees to
deal with harassment in their organizations have been greeted
with quite a few false accusations of late then you PROBABLY
aren't paying attention.
I would be interested in seeing that evidence and how those organizations
compare. However, there is nothing in the Ombudsteam approach that
is assuming the truthfulness of the report; this is a place where
confidentiality is important to protect both the subject and respondent.
Since there are several circumstances where claims of false accusations
or untruthful behavior (say - voter fraud in the US) and no evidence that
I have heard or seen, I do take such concerns with a certain cynicism.
Furthermore, if you haven't realized that when these committees
dispense justice it sometimes violates due process and opens up
those organizations to great risk then you are the focus of why this
discussion is happening.
The current draft has been passed via legal counsel as well as had advice
from those at ISOC who are familiar with HR issues. One of the obvious
concerns is that we don't create an inappropriate backdoor to short-circuit
the mechanisms that the IETF has to handle things like recalls. Of course,
there does seem to be quite strong sentiment that allowing the Ombudsteam
to make strong recommendations or even trigger a recall committee if
necessary would be good. There's a balance here and I'm certainly listening
to the opinions of the community.
Have you been trained in the considerations around this? I haven't - yet.
Have you assisted in handling harassment cases and hearing what's actually
going on? I am interested to understand what your expertise and background
in this space is.
> If your concern is that you might obliviously misstep and be called
> out on it - then yes - you may - and you may actually need to think
> about it beforehand or learn from it afterwards. Welcome to life.
It's quite revealing that you would even think that could even be a
legitimate concern.
I can only speculate on what is driving the concern to protect the respondent
without ever considering the subject.
There are four possibilities that I see.
a) what if one accidentally messes up and gets in trouble?
b) what if one deliberately harasses, is not able to see or understand that,
and must be stopped from being in situations where more offenses are likely?
c) what if one is harassed against, complains, and it destroys ones reputation?
d) what if one is falsely accused and it destroys ones reputation?
> To quote another stereotyped saying: "Women are afraid of being
> physically hurt. Men are afraid of being embarrassed." Enough
> already! I'm already embarrassed for you and your lack of perspective.
Talk about perspective! You are effectively slandering people who are
expressing legitimate concerns about this process as people who want
to "game the system" to enable harassment. If I was a sensitive soul I
would treat your Shut Up, She Reasoned approach ("I'm already
embarrassed for you") to this thread as an example of bullying. But
I'm not so I'll just tell you that you're gonna have to deal with people.
First - I did not pull my gender out and wave it around. I find it, frankly,
utterly appalling that you decide that my words have different legitimacy because
of my gender. I would, in fact, appreciate an apology on that point.
Second, I did not say you should shut up. I asked you to consider - for even
a day - the perspective where you might have been the Subject.
Third, I have school-age children and have educated myself on what bullying is.
I did not address or respond to one particular person or thread deliberately.
I am not attacking specific individuals for their characteristics or continually
telling them to shut up. I am asking you to think outside of your initial perspective.
Obviously, you felt that you were one whom I might be embarrassed for.
Dealing with people involves communicating. Just as I may find a technical
flaw to discuss or a perspective not considered in a protocol (great - but how
do they turn off this critical security feature on a link if they need to downgrade
to a release that doesn't support it - for instance) and just as I may need to help
guide and encourage fruitful technical conversations, here I found the tone
of this discussion sufficient to encourage those participating to try additional
perspectives.
Regards,
Alia
Welcome to Life.
Dan.