On Monday, November 4, 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 11/03/2013 04:48 PM, SM wrote:
I agree with what Dave Crocker and John Klensin wrote (re. the two
messages on the thread). The public record does not show that there
were responses to the questions which were raised. The policy might be
viewed as being dictated instead of one which people have understood and
have agreed to.
Just out of curiosity, what happens if the organization is unable
to come to consensus on an anti-harassment policy?
One of the problems that I think we're facing and that we're not
dealing with is that consensus processes are not a very good way
to protect the rights of the minority, marginalized, etc.
I think the sound or rights of community (majority, minorities, and
diversity) are not represented, because we have no WG related to policies.
Minorities of community (north America) are already dominated consensus
because they seem to have become the IETF majority. WG serve rights of both
majority and minorities, but non-WG serves only management or minority of
the community. We only protect community rights if we can represent
community through a body (as as IETF WG) but there is no body for community
related to policies and discussions.
This
should not be construed as an endorsement of the IESG going off
and unilaterally developing a policy without much input from the
body, but I am saying we've got a problem around this kind of
thing.
We need two body working together, as having a IETF WG (not assigned Design
Group team) and the IESG, this way we can have policies that don't ignore
any rights.
AB