FWIW, I largely agree with Dave. I think the motives here are
entirely appropriate, but the IESG's handing down dicta is
questionable -- and could be quite problematic if a situation
appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.
To the extent to which there is concern in the community that
the IESG has become too large a job that thereby excludes people
who ought to be candidates (as suggested by other/earlier
threads), the community should be consulted on whether these are
good tasks for the IESG to take on, independent of the details
of the documents. It may also be useful to remind people who
are convinced that the IESG has consistently gotten these sorts
of things either right or wrong that this is the right season
for explaining one's position to the Nomcom.
best,
john
--On Sunday, 03 November, 2013 14:55 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
...