On 11/5/2013 4:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I am also very concerned --because I'm paranoid and worry about
such things-- that, were the IETF ever to apply sanctions
against someone who was inclined and had the resources to
strongly push back and the mechanism used to define the
procedures was irregular and violated our basic rules, we could
find ourselves with far more difficult problems than whether or
not there was enough insurance to protect IESG members.
Precisely because I think the problem is both significant and
important I want make sure that whatever remedies are adopted
are considered and adopted with careful attention to our rules
for how decisions are made and ratified.
G'day.
Some folks are aware that I often agree with John's analysis of a
problem but rarely agree with his conclusions. As has been the pattern
this week, this is one of those exceptions.
The topic at hand falls into the world of human resources, notably the
delicate topic of defining acceptable behavior and disciplining
personnel who fail to conform. The topic is difficult on its face
(small, pre-coffee pun. personnel. face. sorry.) and that's made
/much/ worse by potentially messy legal exposures that accompany
personnel actions of this type.
In the our case it's made especially more challenging due to the IETF's
intent and reality of massive diversity combined with high turnover; we
have a large percentage of new, not-yet-acculturated folk all the time.
Behavior that is far out of bounds to one group is entirely within
bounds to another. There's no indication that this policy text has been
vetted with HR or legal experts or that the diversity aspect has been
considered significantly.
Rather than being pursued with due consideration, the handling of this
topic has been explicitly rushed. So while the folks who have worked on
this sought to be diligent and have put serious energy into making the
text workable, it's almost certainly too narrow a set of skills that
were applied, and not enough consideration for application of the policy.
The concerns I've raised have not been to push against proceeding with a
policy but to press for making it both meaningful to the community that
must conform to it and robust against attack.
To stress this: I'm delighted the IESG has taken the initiative. The
recent examples I have heard of behaviors that qualify as massively
inappropriate are appalling. As another IETFer asked, were these people
raised by wolves?
However I simply don't see the organizational rules or history that give
the IESG the authority to impose such a policy by fiat. And having a
long and impressive list of folk issue a post-hoc statement of support
for the action does not really deal with the underlying concern.
A constructive response to the challenge "I believe there is no
authority to do this" is not a chorus of voices saying "yes there is".
It is one voice that provides the clear and compelling explanation of
the basis for the authority, sufficient to withstand an eventual legal
attack.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net