One nit: """ Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due process of law for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which any harassment takes place. """ I think it's a bit broader than that; depending on the specifics, sometimes where it occurs doesn't matter. I'd suggest just "…due process of law." > On 1 Sep 2015, at 12:45 am, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This document has been in last call previously, and one issue in particular > caused concern. A design team was created in May 2015 to address this > issue, and the document has also otherwise been updated. See further > below for a detailed list of changes and history. > > The sponsoring Area Director believes a new formal last call is needed > to ensure that the resulting document matches the community's > expectations on this important topic. > > The sponsoring Area Director also believes that this is a topic where > it is important to have an official IETF policy. Policies relating to > human behaviour can be difficult topics to deal with, particularly > in the all-cases-fully-specified manner that we are accustomed in > our technical work. However, policies can be also be updated > if later experience proves they have issues. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-09-21. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > - 'IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures' > <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-08.txt> as Best Current Practice > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-harassment/ > > Changes since the previous last call can be seen via > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt&url2=draft-farrresnickel-harassment-08.txt > > Adrian Farrel, one of the document editors stated this as a summary > of the changes on the IETF list (the email is copied below and originally > from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94129.html): > > ---- > > After some very fruitful mail exchanges on and off the list and some detailed > discussions face-to-face in Prague, we have produced a new revision of the > anti-harassment process document. > > Some of the changes are quite large. Others are small, but subtle. I > recommend reading the whole document, but if you want to look only > at changes, I suggest you diff against -05, the version that was updated > after IETF last call and went to the IESG for evaluation > > In checking to see what changes were made and whether they addressed > your comments, please bear in mind that there were a lot of comments > made in a conversational manner and it was quite hard to round them > up and determine exactly what changes needed to be made. Ines did a > great job helping as Shepherd, but if we have missed something you > said, it is not because we are ignoring you: it's just that we lost the > point amongst other comments and discussions. > > Additionally, I'd ask you to think about whether what we have is "good > enough" to act as a starting point. I'm conscious that we have been > debating having this piece of process for a long time and that my > personal preference is to get something going (a beta release?) and > then tune it as we go forwards. In the light of that I know that > consensus on some parts of the document may be a little rough. > This mainly happens when the opinions on an issue are very > divergent and not easily brought together. I hope that we have > done a good job at building bridges, but will not be surprised > or upset if some of you are not happy. > > I'm responsible for most of the edits in this round (with > assistance from multiple people) so please blame me > (and complain about me to Pete) for any nonsense. > > As to process, I suggest that this document needs to be > taken around for another IETF last call, but I leave that > to Jari as the responsible AD. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ------ > > In summary... > > Abstract: clarify the nature of updates to existing RFCs. > > Introduction: s/interpersonal/personal/ > > Definitions: Clarify that the definition of harassment is deliberately not > a closed list. > > Definitions: Add a paragraph (loosely based on the IEEE's equivalent > policy) to scope when harassment applies within the IETF. > > Definitions: Add a clause recommended by our lawyers about applicable law. > > Ombudsteam: Clarify "recompense" to mean "compensation from the IETF". > > Term of Service: Add paragraph for when an Ombudsperson's term ends > while they are acting as Lead Ombudsperson . > > Term of Service: Add a note about likelihood of reappointment. > > Compensation: Clarify "recompense" to mean "compensation from the IETF". > > Removal: Expand the times that an Ombudsperson can be removed. > > Handling Reports: Fix email address and URL. > > Handling Reports: Clarify that remedies are imposed only after > completing investigations. > > Operating Practices: Expand on confidentiality expectations. > > Operating Practices: Clarify that the Respondent is contacted and > given an opportunity to interact before a remedy is imposed. > > Operating Practices: Add when the Ombudsteam must commit things to writing. > > Remedies: Add that mediation ned not be an end point. > > Remedies: Show how remedies may be actioned through the Secretariat or IAD. > > Remedies for Respondents in IETF Positions: Add substantial new section. > > Purpose of Remedies: Expand on the details and theme of "not as > punishment" remedies. > > Confidentiality: Add new section to describe expectations. > > Acknowledgements: What a lot of you have helped with this document! > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/