On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Mary,
Thanks for taking the time and giving your input.
I take a couple of things away from your review...
[MB] I agree with all the points below and have one additional comment.
Thanks! [/MB]
1. We should state our expectation of Ombudsperson recusal. Not that the
Ombudsperson would be anything other than wholly professional, but making
the statement will help people to have the right expectations when they
report incidents.
1a. Point 1 obviously speaks to the need for more than one Ombudsperson.
2. We should include a note about corporate anti-harassment policies. I
think this is going to need a little thought, but it should be light (along
the same lines as the legal note) and should probably simply acknowledge
that people involved in the IETF may be subject to other anti-harassment
policies such as from their employers, and that the IETF policy neither
replaces nor stands in for such policies.
3. We need to come to some consensus about selection procedures. What I
got from Dave's email (so what I think you are agreeing with) was:
- Should be IETF volunteers
- Should be more than one (he suggested 3)
[MB] I think 3 is a good number. It allows for recusal in certain cases
and since these could be very challenging situations, this will provide a
means of validating opinions, etc. prior to taking actions. [/MB]
- Should be trained
- Should have access to professional consultancy (HR and legal)
Since this is almost where Pete and I were with the issue, and since most
of the comments we have received seem to have been along the same lines, I
think we can probably converge on some words.
Cheers,
Adrian
*From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
*Sent:* 17 March 2014 17:59
*To:* <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>;
presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
*Cc:* <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
*Subject:* Comments on draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01
I've finally had a chance to take my first look at this document.
One thing that I find notably missing is any mention of corporate
anti-harassment policies that may also apply to these situations. It's
noted in section 1 that this document doesn't interfere with the legal
handling of these issues. However, there's no mention of how these
guidelines might relate or be superseded by corporate policies, which in
the US, at least could very well apply to these situations. Most corporate
policies apply outside the workplace, on business trips, etc. Thus, I
think there needs to be some mention of how this relates to, interacts with
or is superseded by corporate policies. I also think that the corporate
guidelines could introduce some difficulties with regards to an
ombudsperson who might have the same corporate affiliation as the
Respondent. My understanding of the policies in many US companies would
require that if the ombudsperson were at a higher level in the company than
the respondent, that the ombudsperson would have a responsibility to report
the incident to corporate HR.
Personally, I think the corporate policies provide a much large stick than
do IETF policies, which is perhaps why some folks behavior is far worse in
IETF than it ever would in a corporate environment. I also realize this
is a very US centric view but given that a large number of IETF
participants work for companies that have a US presence, I think it's
relevant.
Not being a lawyer and having my only experience with corporate
anti-harassment procedures being "avoid at all costs" (i.e., get a new
manager rather than have to go to HR and complain about a boss), I don't
think I have the right answers as to how this needs to be addressed, but I
don't think it can be avoided.
I also agree with Dave Crocker's comments on the -00 with regards to how
the Ombudsperson is selected, etc.:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86223.html
Regards,
Mary.