ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

2014-03-04 05:29:05
Hi Bjoern,

Sorry for parsing you while being in a WG meeting.

I think you are saying that *this* document should not lean on the IESG
statement, but should be a standalone policy document.

We believe we have achieved this by direct text rather than a normative
reference.

But we would be happy to hear exactly where we messed up.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net]
Sent: 04 March 2014 11:25
To: Pete Resnick; Adrian Farrel
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

* 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/