Hi Pete, Adrian,
I have a few comments about draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00.
In Section 1:
'This sort of behavior, described in the IESG Statement on an "IETF
Anti-Harassment Policy" [1], is not easily dealt with by our normal
working group guidelines and procedures."
I assume that this intended BCP, if approved, will replace the
above-mentioned policy.
"These procedures are intended to be used when other IETF policies and
procedures do not apply or have been ineffective."
The above sounds like government legislation where the law is used as
a matter of convenience instead of the original intent.
"Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due
process of law for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which
any harassment takes place."
What does this mean? Would an Area Director contact the authorities
(e.g.
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/20737/Anti-social-behaviour-racial-harassment
) if there is reason to do so?
In Section 2:
"This document does not attempt to precisely define behavior that
falls under the set of procedures identified here. 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."
For what it is worth, there was an interesting comment at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00309.html
There is a transcript of a (private) conversation at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 The swear word can
also be heard in one of the IETF's audio recordings. The point here
is that it is a matter of context and culture. Please note that I am
not arguing for having a definition.
In Section 3.1:
"The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair. The appointment is
solely the responsibility of the IETF 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."
It would be easier to write:
The IETF Chair appoints the Ombudspersons. The number of Ombudspersons
appointed is at the discretion of the IETF Chair.
The quoted text mentions that the appointment is the sole
responsibility of the IETF Chair and then gets into
consultations. The consultations part does not bring in any
value. The text mentions "may consider elements of
diversity". Either the entire appointment matter is at the
discretion of the IETF Chair or it isn't.
In Section 3.2:
"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."
As I read the above my first thought is that it has been drawn from a
mindset of a particular country and having the person(s) trained to
follow the values of that particular country. That section comes out
as satisfying some compliance requirement instead of trying to find
someone who can be viewed as an acceptable mediator.
In Section 3.5:
"The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
their term without explanation to the community. Such an action
shall not be appealable. See also Section 6."
That is not transparent at all.
I will defer my comments about Section 3.6.
It is understandable that the names of the parties involved (see
Section 5) might have to be kept private. However, keeping the cases
secret opens the way for gossip or worse. The approach comes out as
hiding the issues in a closet instead of trying to find the balance
between transparency and confidentiality.
In Section 6:
"All elements of the appeal, including the fact of the appeal, will be
held in confidence, but will be recorded and held securely for future
reference."
Is this the IETF's version of a (U.S.) National Security Letter?
I suggest not having zen stuff in the Security Considerations section.
In my opinion the person who is subject to harassment is a victim and
not a target. The word "target" does not convey any empathy. I am
interested in reading other opinions about the draft before taking a position.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy