At 07:00 PM 3/18/2014, Pete Resnick wrote:
So I think the ability to have an (exceptional) process for dealing with
incidents privately is necessary. I hope that we can come to consensus that
having some set of folks in place for these (hopefully exceedingly
exceptional) circumstances, who (in the most exceptional of these
circumstances) have the power to quietly tell someone that they can't even
stay at the meeting, is an exception to our openness that we can live with.
The above pretty well meets the definition of "Star Chamber". Strict,
arbitrary and secretive. And my biggest issue (albeit not the only one) with
the proposal.
Other issues:
Can the ombudsman remove anyone without restriction? E.g. IAB, IESG, IETF
chair, IAOC and IETF Trust? Or does this only apply at the WG chair level on
down? Or only for non-wg chair participants? I ask this because in every case
except the general participant, we have defined ways to remove someone and it
seems problematic to allow a single individual to remove an AD for example.
There are also legal issues with removing a trust member I would expect.
Can the ombudsman get involved with issues of harassment that do not implicate
participation in the IETF? What's the threshold?
Will the evidence and the witnesses be made available to the Respondent?
Will there be an advocate assigned to represent the interests of the Respondent?
What happens if/when the Respondent declines to participate and instead brings
the issue into the public stream? Or alternately, sues the ombudsman,
personally, for defamation and business interference?
What's the decision threshold - preponderance? beyond a reasonable doubt?
Strong belief? A good story? A dislike of the Respondent based on their
public persona?
You mentioned good faith complaints. What about bad faith? Are the expulsion
penalties applicable to a bad faith reporter?
You mention that the Ombsudman can consider failure to cooperate on the part of
the Respondent in determining remedy (shouldn't that be culpability?) - but
from a legal standpoint it could be stupid for a Respondent to cooperate as any
discussions in this context could provide fodder for a real world legal suit
regardless of the facts of the matter. Is there a fairer way of stating this?
These are hard issues for companies and organizations with full time legal and
HR staffs. We have neither and you're proposing to place this in the hands of
amateurs. I shudder at the thought of how badly the IETF could screw this up -
in a very well-meaning way.
Mike