On 3/9/2015 12:49 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Closing some loops on this topic as the document is being approved.
Simply put: We need to run this as a closed-loop, on-going,
incrementally-improving system.
I think we will do it as a part of running the system.
Jari,
We already have failed to do that.
Worse, you chose to use my 'simply put' summary rather than attend to
the detailed substance I asked:
0) Do we have a basis for knowing that IETF participants are aware
of harassment-related remedies that are available?
1) Do we have a basis for believing that these remedies are
perceived as real and useful?
2) If someone is harassed, how do we know they received helpful
assistance? (In other words, do we have a basis for 'knowing' that the
remedies are real and useful?_
3) Do we have a way of assessing whether patterns of harassment show
improvement (less harassment)?
My reference to operating closed loop is meant to call for oversight and
evaluation of the process.
You set up an interim process some time ago. It has been exercised a
number of times. We have seen no feedback about it and have no basis
for assessing how well or poorly it has worked. My detailed questions
are meant to elicit some substantive information to feed into this draft
/now/.
While the draft proposes important differences from the interim process
you established, its premise and core principles are the same. We
therefore ought to be able to glean valuable lessons from the nearly
one-year of experience.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net