The draft has missing parts, because 1) the levels of harassing was not
defined, 2 ) it may also ignore the real practical society problems that
make harassing occur, 3) it gives a lot of power to IETF chair without
conditions or limits (may be the reason is to make it simple). The draft
may assume that all ADs can not be part of harassing (not sure, draft is
unclear on this assumption). It should consider to be fair to all, and to
prevent sources of harassing not only solving when occurs. The below
comments are also initial comments.
2. Definitions
The following terms are used in this document:
Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to
the Ombudsperson.
Please amend to PH Reporter (Potential Harassment).
Respondent: An IETF participant who is claimed to have engaged in
harassing behavior.
This should explain his/her respond and to whom he/she responding to.
Ombudsperson: The person who is selected to take reports of
harassment, evaluate them, and impose appropriate actions and/or
remedies to address the circumstance. This word is used in the
singular throughout this document although multiple ombudspersons
might serve at any one time.
Target: An individual IETF participant to whom the potentially
harassing behavior was directed.
Why only individual? Why not group of people or race or gender. The target
can be more than one,
Please amend; a group or an individual participant.
This document does not attempt to precisely define behavior that
falls under the set of procedures identified here.
That is good but IMHO still we need its limits defined.
However, you are missing another part of behaviour damage on the IETF
general behaviour. So we need to define another target, which may be
named; possible future target.
Usually most harassing has two victims or target one is the main and the
other is not intended but affected, because it may become a possible future
target. Wise people avoid groups that has not reported harassing.
In general,
disruptive behavior that occurs in the context of an IETF general or
working group mailing list, or happens in a face-to-face or virtual
meeting of a working group or the IETF plenary, can be dealt with by
our normal procedures, whereas harassing behavior that is
interpersonal is more easily handled by the procedures described
here. However, there are certainly plausible reasons to address
behaviors that take place during working-group meetings using these
procedures. This document gives some guidance to those involved in
these situations in order to decide how to handle particular
incidents, but in the end the final decision will involve judgment
and the guidance of the Ombudsperson.
3. The Ombudsperson
This section describes the role of the Ombudsperson in terms of their
appointment, qualifications and training, the length of the term of
service, any recompense for their service, and how they may be
removed from service. The general operational procedures for the
Ombudsperson are described in Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6.
3.1. Appointing the Ombudsperson
The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair.
I think should be appointed by IESG, not the IETF chair, because any
IETF AD is also an individual participant that may possibly be target or
respondent.
The appointment is
solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair
Responsible to the IESG not to the chair.
although the Chair may
choose to consult with the IESG, the IAB, and with ISOC.
Furthermore, the IETF Chair may take opinion from the community.
The IETF Chair may choose to solicit nominations or advertise the
post. This is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair.
The IETF Chair is also free to decide how many people are needed to
fill the role of Ombudsperson. This may depend on the skillsets
available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated
Ombudsperson. Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of
diversity in making this decision.
There should be diversity, so if a harassing is related to a race then the
ombudsperson should not be in same race.
3.2. Qualifications and Training
It is not expected that there will be candidates with all of the
necessary ombudsperson skills and training who also have a clear
understanding and familiarity with the IETF processes and culture.
The Chair might choose someone with a great deal of professional
experience evaluating and mediating harassment disputes, but little
exposure to the IETF, or could select someone with more exposure to
the IETF community, but without as much experience dealing with
issues of harassment. Since all of these attributes may be regarded
by the IETF Chair as essential for an appointment, the IETF is
committed to provide funding for necessary training for an appointed
Ombudsperson.
3.3. Term of Service
An Ombudsperson shall be appointed for a two year term. That is, the
Ombudsperson is making a commitment to serve for two years. It is
understood, however, that circumstances may lead an Ombudsperson to
resign for personal or other reasons. See also Section 3.5.
It is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair whether a serving
Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.
IMHO the Chair reports to IESG for approval.
3.4. Recompense
An Ombudsperson shall receive no recompense for their services. This
includes, but is not limited to:
IETF meeting fees
Remuneration for time spent
Out-of-pocket expenses (such as telephone charges)
Travel or accommodation expenses
The IETF will, however, meet the costs of training when agreed to by
the IETF Chair as described in Section 3.2.
3.5. Removal
The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
their term without explanation to the community.
But it should be explained to IESG.
Such an action
shall not be appealable. See also Section 6.
3.6. Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson
There should be conditions for these both roles. Is there a condition that
that chair was not a reporter or a respondent or a target for PH? I think
there should be, because if he/she is part of the harassing issue then
he/she should not be the one to decide or as you mention below unable to
resolve. Also if the IESG has some targets as well what is the procedure?
If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IETF
Chair regarding the appointment, removal, or management of the
Ombudsperson, that person should first discuss the issue with the
IESG Chair directly.
I thought that the IETF chair is the IESG chair? But in here they seem
different person.
If the IESG Chair is unable to resolve the
issue, the dissatisfied party may appeal to the IESG as a whole. The
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
manner of its own choosing.
There should be clear conditions that any member of that IESG should not be
target or reporter or respondent. Otherwise they should not be able to
choose.
The procedures of Section 6.5.4 of
[RFC2026] apply to this sort of appeal.
4. Handling Reports of Harassment
Any IETF participant who believes that they or other IETF
participants have been harassed or may have been harassed may bring
the concern to the attention of the Ombudsperson. This can be done
by email to "ombudsperson(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" [2], or can be done
directly to
the Ombudsperson. Direct contact information for the Ombudsperson,
including the email addresses to which "ombudsperson(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
is
forwarded, can be found at https://www.ietf.org/ombudsperson .
The Ombudsperson is expected to be present at the majority of IETF
meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions.
All information brought to the Ombudsperson shall be kept in strict
confidence. Any electronic information (such as email messages) that
needs to be archived shall be encrypted before it is stored.
When a Reporter brings an incident of potential harassment to the
Ombudsperson's attention to, the Ombudsperson will discuss the events
with the Reporter and may give advice including recommendations on
how the Reporter can handle the issue on their own and strategies on
how to prevent the issue from arising again. The Ombudsperson may
also indicate that the issue would be best handled using regular IETF
procedures (such as those for dealing with disruptive behavior)
outside the context of harassment, and in this case the Ombudsperson
will provide assistance in using the relevant IETF procedures. In
any event, the Ombudsperson will not initiate detailed investigations
or impose a remedy without agreement to proceed from the Target (or
the Reporter if there is no individual Target).
When conducting a detailed investigation of the circumstances
regarding the complaint of harassment, the Ombudsperson may contact
the Respondent and request a meeting in person or by a voice call.
The Respondent is not obliged to cooperate, but the Ombudsperson may
consider failure to cooperate when determining a remedy (Section 5).
In all cases the Ombudsperson will strive to maintain confidentiality
for all parties including the very fact of contact with the
Ombudsperson.
5. Remedies
After examining the circumstances regarding the complaint of
harassment and determining that harassment has taken place, the
Ombudsperson is expected to choose a remedy that is appropriate to
the circumstance. At one end of the spectrum, the Ombudsperson may
decide that the misbehavior is best handled with the regular IETF
procedures for dealing with disruptive behavior and may assist the
Reporter to bring the issue to the attention of the working group
chair or IESG member who can deal with the incident. The
Ombudsperson might also choose simply to discuss the situation with
the Respondent and come up with a plan such that there is no repeat
of the harassment.
It is a weak remedy, or it is a plan.
The respondent SHOULD apologies and declare mistaken.
With the agreement of both parties, the
Ombudsperson can also help to mediate a conversation between the
Respondent and the Target (or the Reporter if there is no individual
Target) in order to address the issue.
Ok.
Finally, on the other end of
the spectrum, the Ombudsperson could decide that the Respondent is no
longer permitted to participate in a particular IETF activity,
whether it is a mailing list discussion, virtual meeting, or a face-
to-face activity, up to and including requiring that the Respondent
can no longer attend a face-to-face IETF meeting and its associated
activities, either for the remainder of the present meeting or (in
the extreme) future meetings.
Disagree, you did not define the limit or level of harassing or even
avoiding to define such behavior, that makes that decision unfair to
the respondent being band from the future of IETF activities (6 months can
be enough, because you don't define the limits).
AB
In determining the appropriate remedy, the Ombudsperson may
communicate with the Reporter, Target, and Respondent in order to
assess the impact that the imposition of a remedy might have on any
of those parties. However, the Ombudsperson has u