* Pete Resnick wrote:
Added the definition of harassment as used in the original IESG
statement. There was also a request to provide a more-detailed
definition, but the authors feel this would distract from the purpose,
lead to endless appeals that a specific action was not covered by the
document, and would detract from the Ombudsperson's judgement.
So, http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement.html says
These messages represent the IESG's best effort to deal with specific
issues that have come up from time to time and are not meant to be a
way for the IESG to revise the established IETF processes. If at any
time someone feels that one or more of these messages represents a
misunderstanding of the intent of the relevant RFCs the issue should
be taken to the IESG mailing list for discussion.
It seems to me the "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy" should have a relevant
RFC and not remain an IESG Statement and accordingly should be included
in the document. Particularily so objections to the text of the policy
can go through the IETF process, rather than being ignored.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/