Folks, This is a difficult discussion. But maybe we should try to get back from the most recent part of the thread to the document, and see how we can move forward. I saw that Sam posted some discussion on the alternate ways to address the issue that he had brought up. Thank you. But other than that, I wanted to up-level a bit and make some observations. First, we have an existing anti-harassment policy. We believe we needed one, and I am happy about having it, even if I am not happy that we live in a world that needs one. We have also had an ombudsperson in our meetings. That person, Linda Klieforth <klieforth@xxxxxxxx>, is also present at this IETF meeting and would be happy to talk to anyone who has any concerns. I would like to do what we can to ensure that the IETF is a safe, comfortable, and easy place to discuss Internet technology. For everybody. We are working on the current document because we wanted to upgrade the policy from an IESG statement to a community BCP and provide more detailed procedures. This is an improvement. It is not the first IETF document on the topic, and it probably won’t be the last. I do believe in incremental improvement, however. While we work on that improvement, please remember that when we talk about human protocols, how we talk about them may create perceptions by other people (as you can tell from this thread), we may not be able to completely avoid all bad cases, we may need lawyer/professional input, the team that will eventually be put into place will have community and professional parts*, etc. Please be sensitive to these aspects that may be different from your usual protocol specification experience. Jari *) My choice, not dictated by the document.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail