On 11/3/2013 2:22 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
As has been previously discussed, the IESG is setting up an
anti-harassment policy for the IETF.
Jari,
I've been considering a posting like this for some months. Your timing
is therefore unfortunately fortuitous...
From my reading of the public responses to this initiative, there does
indeed appear to be strong community support for pursuing an
anti-harassment policy.
However...
There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses, and
even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough consensus
for the text you've just announced.[*]
In formal terms, it's not at all clear (to me, at least) that the
IESG has the authority to declare something like an IETF-wide
anti-harassment policy by fiat, no matter how laudable the effort.
What was -- and remains -- needed is for the IESG to work through
feedback issues publicly and on the record, the same as any working
group needs to do, and then to issue a formal Last Call and to require
explicit and informed statements that produce a clear sense of active
community rough consensus in support.
I'm am quite confident that anti-harassment is a topic that will get
that support. But really, the IESG hasn't done the work that's needed
yet, no matter how excellent or poor the latest text might be.
d/
[*] This only the latest of what I believe is is a relatively
long-standing pattern for IESG and IAB documents, to be very selective
in responding to feedback and then to summarily decide on final forms.
The IAB probably has the formal authority to behave that way,
independent of whether it is advisable. I believe the IESG rarely, if
ever, does.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net