James,
Thanks for reading, supporting, and commenting.
I think you have raised valid points. They're not on the main path, but they
are close enough to it to warrant some thought.
I'll talk with Pete and see whether we can concoct a line or two.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: James Woodyatt [mailto:jhw(_at_)nestlabs(_dot_)com]
Sent: 15 January 2015 23:46
To: IETF discussion list; draft-farrresnickel-harassment(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment
Everyone—
Having reviewed I-D.farrresnickel-harassment, I have a comment, but first I
want to express my vigorous support for this effort to establish
anti-harassment procedures in IETF.
It occurs to me that the Lead Ombudsperson has a variety of functions related
to the application of remedies, and the draft doesn't clearly indicate what
happens when the term of service ends for a Lead Ombudsperson with unresolved
cases.
It seems obvious that the draft intends to leave this policy for the Ombudsteam
to set, and I suppose that's adequate, but I think the draft would be improved
if Section 3.7 were to make explicit note of that. You know, so as to remind
the Ombudsteam that they really need to plan for that, because it's a thing
that will happen.
I can also imagine one scenario where the procedures in the draft might become
troubled.
Consider the case where a Reporter informs the Lead Ombudsperson they believe
another Ombudsperson should recuse themselves, then later, before the case is
resolved, that Lead Ombudsperson is removed from the Ombudsteam. If that
scenario happened to me, then I'd very much want to be consulted in the
selection of a replacement for the Lead Ombudsperson for my case.
Perhaps Section 3.7 should say something to the effect that the Ombudsteam
shall in each case select a replacement for the Lead Ombudsperson from among
its members with the agreement of the Reporter.
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)nestlabs(_dot_)com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering