ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01 - A mostly 'NO' view

2014-03-20 05:07:12
On 3/20/14, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
I read through this and really believe you're missing my point.

1) I agree there's a problem.
(procedure problem needs to be solved quickly by IETF.)
2) I agree that "something" should be done.
done quickly by us editing and providing text/solutions.
3) I disagree with the approach espoused in this document, specifically with
the granting of plenipoteniary powers to the ombudsman without necessary,
well-defined, agreed upon procedures and without sufficient checks and
balances.

I understand you agree to the draft but not to some of its solution
processes or approaches.


I'm at this point unclear why we're jumping to this approach rather than
first getting the "investigate, mediate and recommend" parts of a typical
ombudsman's job up and working.

The reason was because some think (I was not included) it will
complicate the document or delay its publication. I may prefer clear
ombudsman job process, but things get complicated in such social
processes/solutions which may not be easy to us to talk on (it is not
technology processes).

 If, at a later time, that approach isn't
sufficient to resolve the accumulated issues, we can then talk about adding
teeth to the process and figuring out whether to place them with the
ombudsman, or in some other process.


If you agree to protect all parties from possible harassments, then
the safer approach is to put the teeth first to protect, and then talk
about reducing teeth size from the powers of ombudspersons. IMO, let
it not delay publication just because approaches or powers.

Overall, your point of changing approach is understood but not
complete because you did not provide your full approach solution
(about ombudsperson powers or processes) in text into the draft, so we
can compare both approaches, and then quickly choose. IMHO, the draft
approach is still simpler/stronger/clearer if we compare your point
with it. Could you provide some text/edit to the draft with explaining
each text change?

AB