Hi
On Thu 20/Feb/2014 21:56:38 +0100 Jari Arkko wrote:
I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very few
situations where these procedures are needed, but they are needed.
I thank you for your help and respectful input into this difficult
but important discussion.
A couple of comments:
IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00
The following terms are used in this document:
Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to
the Ombudsperson.
You mean "harassment or potential harassment", don't you?
I suggest a fifth definition, grouping the persons --Target(s) or
Reporter(s)-- who started or were involved in a case. For example:
Harassed Subject: The Target or the Reporter if there is no
individual Target.
The Ombudsperson is expected to be present at the majority of IETF
meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions.
In that case, it might be practical to consider Ombudsperson deputies,
nominated by the Ombudsperson directly, possibly for a single
meeting/event only.
All information brought to the Ombudsperson shall be kept in strict
confidence.
Yes, unless the Harassed Subjects agree to publish it. I see no
reason to make it necessarily confidential in every case. In some
cases, public disapprobation can save the day (see below).
Any electronic information (such as email messages) that
needs to be archived shall be encrypted before it is stored.
Since this is not a technical memo, it could suffice to say that the
Ombudsperson will use adequate precautions when transmitting or
archiving confidential information.
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).
This is yet another place where the fifth definition comes handy.
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. 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.
In such circumstances, the Ombudsperson can devise a punishment or
penitence to be inflicted to the Respondent. Anything like a slap on
the wrist or having the Respondent stand naked on the stage and
publicly apologize for his/her misconduct will do, so long as the
Harassed Subjects agree that it is appropriate. Of course, the
Ombudsperson has no legal power to enforce a punishment, but the
Respondent's willingness to receive it voluntarily is to be considered
when making further decisions on the case.
jm2c
Ale