Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Although reasonable by many measures, the proposal needs more
complete specification of the standing Ombud function. It also needs
a different appeals body.
I agree with Dave.
This topic is quite foreign to the experience, skill set and even
perspective of most IETF participants, touching delicate and painful
legal and personnel management issues. Anyone put in a position of
handling a harassment report needs training, coupled with expert
advice.
I am not familiar with what is available in the way of training;
but I am quite sure that no amount of training will remove the need
for occasional expert advice.
1. Ombud Formation
I believe the most critical bit of core work for handling a report of
harassment is to already have a well-defined and stable Ombud function,
with good community understanding of the function and approval for it.
+1
The proposal defers the substance of this issue to the IETF Chair.
While the Chair is probably the right function for overseeing formation
of the Ombud, the framework for the office should not be left to the
vagaries of whoever happens to be Chair and whatever they happen to
think right at one moment or another.
I tend to agree with Dave; but my immediate reaction was, "The IETF
Chair function already covers too much. Perhaps Jari can handle it,
but we shouldn't put this much work on IETF chairs thal follow him."
So the Ombud function needs to be formally defined and according to
community approval, not merely community review.
"Community approval" is judged by the IESG now -- what I see as
important is that we not ask the IESG to propose the changes as we go.
Hence the requirements and details for the function need separate
and stable specification,
+1
with community support around it.
Whatever...
Then the IETF Chair can reasonably be asked to implement it.
We really should limit the workload upon future IETF chairs. (I see
nothing wrong with Jari appointing the first Ombud-whatevers.)
So it is better to rest the responsibility for Ombud work on the
shoulders of experienced IETF volunteers.
Agreed.
2. Appeal
It's reasonable to consider the IESG or IAB as an appeals review board,
since they already have some IETF appeals responsibilities. However
harassment reports call on completely different expertise and completely
different dynamics. They also require far greater confidentiality and
sensitivity than is reasonable to demand from the IESG or IAB.
Perhaps the IAB could manage this, but I strongly recommend against
asking the IESG to handle such appeals; and the IAB doesn't feel right
either...
So, here's a modified proposal...
1. Setup
a. Formulate a standing Complaints Committee -- called the Ombud
-- of 3 IETF volunteers. This is small enough to make efficient
and coherent workings workings more likely, along with maintain a
reasonable degree of confidentiality.
+1
b. Give them the relevant professional manager's training in
handling harassment complaints.
(Someone has to define what that includes. While I trust Jari to
come up with a reasonable definition, I suggest that the definition
be published before appointing the initial board.)
c. Recruit a professional HR harassment adviser and a
harassment-savvy attorney, to act as advisers.
I don't know how hard that will be, but it sounds like a very good
idea.
2. Processing:
a. On receiving a report, the committee works with the Reporter,
Target and Respondent to formulate a sanitized summary of the
complaint and 'defense'.
I strongly recommend the committee be responsible for re-stating
the complaint, and hopefully the response. Re-stating in clear terms
is often critical to finding a path to resolution.
This will be used if there is an appeal.
It will be essential to establishing a basis for considering an
appeal within the IETF.
It also will serve to get the involved parties to focus on the
essential details.
That may be optimistic, but IMHO _some_ basis for shared focus is
essential to the process.
The wordsmithing goal of the sanitization is to produce a version
that can be shown outside of this initial group.
This is not always necessary, or even possible; but when practical,
it _will_ be helpful.
Possibly only an appeals committee but possibly even public.
IMHO, even what is shown to an appeals committee needs to be agreed
to by the parties; and the initial re-statement shouldn't require such
agreement.
b. The Ombud works with the principals to assess the claimed
offense and formulate responses they deem appropriate.
+1
c. The Ombud modifies the sanitized writeup to include a
sanitized summary of the decision.
d. If any of the principals wishes, they can appeal the Ombud's
decision. Appeal is to the ISOC Board of Trustees.
Appeal directly to ISOC BoT seems reasonable to me. If this becomes
a problem, they seem the right group to propose an alternative.
Note that none of this concerns the content of RFCs or architecture
of the Internet; so I see no reason to involve the IAB (and I'm quite
opposed to involving the IESG).
3. Appeals:
For a topic like this, I think one level of appeal is sufficient
and that the sensitive personnel and legal aspects of this topic warrant
restricting who is involved, including choosing a venue that already has
legal strictures in place. Hence the ISOC Board, rather than the IESG.
+1
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>