> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
>> it is better that we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to
>> the complainer(s).
> As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ... I think he's right
> in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary action needs to
> be *perceived* as fair. ... I think we do need to follow due process.
I'm going to disagree with you on this. My reasoning is that the decision of
whether or not to suspend should be based almost entirely on the target
person's posts, so the identity (and, indeed, the number) of people
complaining is basically irrelevant.
The whole concept of "facing your accuser" came about because the accusers
usually made factual claims ("I saw Joe steal Frank's car"). Traditionally,
people wanted to be able to weigh the truthfulness of such claims by
observing the person making the assertion, and observing their response to
questioning. In addition, the target might know of some grudge that led the
accuser to make a false accusation. In this case, however, there is
absolutely no probative value coming from knowing *who* complained.
To put it another way, I would hope if several people complained about some
reasonable post, the SaA(s) would independently review the post, and if they
thought it was reasonable, would take no action, the number or identity of
the complainers notwithstanding. The issue is not who complained - the issue
is the content of the posts - and that's all.
Indeed, any miniscule probative value in knowing who complained is entire
outweighed, IMO, by the possibility that making their identities public would
result in a campaign of harrassment against them.
And no, I was not one of the people who complained privately.
> I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on their own volition,
> but if they do they should say so
I have no probem with the SaA(s) disclosing whether or not they acted
entirely on their own bat, in response to complaints, or both. In addition, I
have no problem with them disclosing the number (if any) of complainters.
However, I strenuously oppose making the names public, because the potential
harm in that (possibility for harassment, and also the possibility that
less-forthcoming people will sit on their hands rather than complain, if
their names have to be made public) far outweighs any possible value in in
mking them public. Indeed, it turns out that most police departments actually
have anonymous tip lines, for precisely these reasons (and others).
If the community decides to do elsewise, I offer myself up as an anonymizing
agent for any complaints to the SaA(s); i.e. I will forward any complaints
sent to me, as if they were my own, after removing the identity of the
former. If I can recruit a few other people to do the same, that will suffice
to avoid any issue with one person not being able to complain more than once.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf