All,
I find this reporting business becoming more and more orwellian, at
least reading the mail below.
The way it work today is that wg chairs are running wg meetings and
mailing lists. We take care of any harassment that we see and deal with
it locally. Realistically I've seen no real harassment cases, but maybe
one or maybe two cases where I as wg chair told people to behave over
the last 10 years. And like other things that I can handle as a wg chair
I don't want to "report"!
I can see that an ombudsman is a good safety net and support for the
wg chairs, but as all safety nets it should never be used. Adding
a "reporting everything" clause is just plain stupid. I guess that the
ombudsman will be smart enough to understand what needs to be brought
to IAB, IESG or ISOC. We don't want to make a bird flock of a very
small feather.
/Loa
On 2014-03-13 11:00, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
My last comment for this new draft-01:
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01
AB/ discuss/ Ombudsperson may receive many reports from community for
such incident. Is the ombudsperson report per subject or per
respondent? As if one respondent harasses two subjects what will be the
report/decision or if two/more respondents harassing one subject what
will be reported/decided.
AB/discuss/ I suggest ombudsperson to report per subject not per
respondent. However, should include reference to other subjects if
harassing is related by same respondent or same harassing object. Per
subject is best because it focuses the anti-harassing actions and
conclusion to respect and protect each subject (subjects may be
different even if they had same harassing respondent or same harassing
object). The subjects may have different reactions.
Therefore, suggest:
ADD/ in section 4
The ombudsperson MUST report/document all harassment/anti-harassment
actions and his/her actions and decisions and summaries that report with
conclusion and recommendation. The ombudsperson report,
1) will summaries are reporters information per subject but not per
respondents and not per harassment object, 2) will include actions and
conclusions with dates and time, 3) will include final anti-harassment
decision.
ADD/ in section 5
The ombudsperson SHOULD report his/her actions after execution but
SHOULD report final anti-harassment decisions before presented to
subject or respondent.
Thanks. My Best Wishes.
Salam,
AB
On Monday, March 10, 2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Bonjour, Ni Hao, and Hallo,
(greatings used in some IETF individuals meeting :-)
IMHO the draft should encourage and recommend progress in WGs and
progress between participants social skills problems (may be in
introduction). If we replace shooting style/behavior with forgiveness
style/behavior, then such participation style will help progress for
more people politely setting their output tone or messages. Therefore
more IETF input participation and diversity.
Adding section related to Assisting Subject and Respondent :
AB> the draft may need some thing that helps both sides, as assistance
in their plans and thoughts while they are in such situation. The
Ombudsperson may need volunteers (close friends to both sides) to help
reduce the HEAT. Please note that Subject MAY call the police, which
we may not prefer because we MAY be able to solve the issues
internally in IETF. Therefore, having a section to promote internal
volunteering within IETF makes us more social and more proactive.
Adding suggestion into draft:
under (5.Remedies):
AB>suggest to add text>
If the decision was to give the respondent full activity rights, then
the respondent MUST apologies in public to the subject and to the
community of such possible harassment. This will help the main goal of
anti-harassment which is that all work together within healthy
environment to encourage participation and diversity.
under (5.Remedies):
The draft paragraph>
However, the Ombudsperson has ultimate
responsibility for the choice of remedy.
AB>discussing> the Ombudsperson SHOULD consider and to discuss the
subject request remedies to get better results of his/her final
Ombudsperson remedy choice, as how to make both (subject and
respondent) in future be able to work with each other and forgive each
other and how to help the Internet-community/Internet-societies to
work with both of them. The aim of Ombudsperson remedy choices is to
consider the IETF vision, diversity and objectives but also to protect
subjects to any such harassment objects within IETF and in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that I was requested by the author to post/share my
thoughts in the IETF list to make it in one place. However, I prefere
the diversity list so I send a copy to it as well.
Salam,
(my personal used greating :-)
AB
On 3/7/14, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Adding suggestions;
>
> Under (5. Remedies):
>
> AB/ text suggest/add/
> If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is
publicly
> evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by
IETF, then
> the related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from IETF
public
> access and MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF.
>
>
> Please note that I was requested by the author to post in the IETF my
> comments.
>
> Regards
> AB
>
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64