This all seems reasonable to me (FWIW).
I have one comment on the Mary/Adrian exchange, and one question from
out of the blue ...
On 03/17/2014 03:33 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
<mailto: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)
It seems obvious enough (after several conversations) that almost no
harassment professionals will understand what passes for normal around
the IETF, and almost no IETF participants will have an in-depth
understanding of how to deal with harassment allegations, so there has
to be some combination of harassment professional and IETF participant
to provide the background ombudspersons will need.
I was leaning towards having professionals with IETF participant support
as ombudpersons, and the only reason I was leaning that direction was
that it's easy for me to imagine an IETF participant who is willing to
serve the community in this way, also being willing to serve the
community as WG chair or AD at some later point in time, and it seemed
awkward to be on the wrong side of a complaint of harassment (in either
direction), and then having your ombudperson pop up in your document
approval chain, further down the road.
Adrian said "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" when talking about
recusal. I wonder if there is any statement about ombudpersons resolving
a complaint and then moving on that would be helpful.
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.
My out of the blue comment:
While re-reading -01, I remembered from a recent refresher on
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt that a PR-action for one IETF
mailing list can spread to any other IETF mailing list - at least,
that's my understanding of this text:
A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
be abusive of the consensus-driven process. If approved by the IESG,
then:
o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
that IETF mailing list removed; and,
o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.
Given that Section 5 ("Remedies") includes not permitting the Respondent
to participate in a mailing list discussion, as I read this text:
Finally, on the other end of
the spectrum, the Ombudsperson could decide that the Respondent is no
longer permitted to participate in a particular IETF activity,
-> whether it is a mailing list discussion, virtual meeting, or a face-
to-face activity, up to and including requiring that the Respondent
can no longer attend a face-to-face IETF meeting and its associated
activities, either for the remainder of the present meeting or (in
the extreme) future meetings.
might this include other mailing lists as well? If that's obvious to
everyone else, my apologies for asking ... but I thought it was worth
asking now, before the question comes up in practice.
Thanks,
Spencer