ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Basic Issues (was Re: anti-harassment procedures)

2014-02-22 21:56:18
I too agree with most of Dave's comments. Just a few remarks below:

On 23/02/2014 11:12, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
It is tempting to suggest assigning the Ombud function to a senior human
resources professional.

However they will not have the experience with the IETF culture and are,
instead, likely to apply a classic corporate model for responding to
harassment complaints, which sometimes includes worrying more about
protecting the company than about ensuring appropriate handling of
actual abuse.

So it is better to rest the responsibility for Ombud work on the
shoulders of experienced IETF volunteers.

However, if we end up with an Ombudsteam, I think it would
be worthwhile to find someone with real-life experience in this
area, but outside the IETF, as a member of the team.

...
     b. Give them the relevant professional manager's training in
handling harassment complaints.

     c. Recruit a professional HR harassment adviser and a
harassment-savvy attorney, to act as advisers.

I am not so sure you want people with an HR background. As I read
http://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/about-the-role-of-an-ombudsman.php,
we are slightly misreading the classical role of an Ombudsman;
that's fine, but we do need advisers or team members with dispute-resolution
and mediation experience.

Also - an attorney familiar with the laws of which jurisdiction
(including the laws of trans-border harassment)? I think counsel
would have to be identified case-by-case, if needed.
...

     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.

Just a note that up to now, we have strictly reserved the ISOC Board
route for claims that our "procedures themselves ... are claimed
to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties." While I think taking the appeals in a
harassment claim right out of the normal checks and balances
is reasonable (and much better than a system where the "management
chain" can protect its own misbehaviour by bouncing appeals), it
should be noted as a significant change.




4. Addendum:

I'll offer one more item I think basic to discussion of this topic.  For
now I'm not suggesting specific wording changes, but do want to
circulate the key point, because I think it has a profound effect upon
one's thinking about harassment.

We typically think of harassment as being a problem only for the
Respondent and the Target.  However there is a third, critical
participant:  The rest of us.

Related to that, the language needs to include cases where either
the Target or the Respondent is a group of people. Group harassment
is not unknown.

    Brian