Hi.
I wanted to follow up after some off-list discussions with Pete. I do
not mean to imply that Pete agrees with these issues; we discussed some
ways of addressing them below, and I give Pete credit for ideas that are
his. However, Pete did not express an opinion about whether I had
identified issues that required resolution, simply worked to find
solutions.
Thanks for a really helpful discussion.
First, I'm really happy that the IETF is doing this work. I hope to
work in an IETF that takes a strong stand against harassment (and as
Dave points out bullying). I believe the general approach in this draft
is sound, and I am happy thinking about that basic approach.
However, reading this draft, I'm filled with sadness, disappointment and
worry when I think about some of the details. I do not think this draft
is ready and I think we have some more work to do. I don't support the
idea that what we have is good enough and we should run with it and
incrementally improve later. Also, after reading Dave Crocker's review
and discussing with him off-list, I think he has points that critically
need to be considered. In particular, Dave's point about distinguishing
interpersonal difficulty from harassment and not focusing on asking
subjects to act differently in the case of harassment seems important.
Here are my specific concerns restated. I have two concerns; the first
relates to confidentiality and both Pete and I believe this is easy to
address. The second is likely to get a very strong emotional reaction,
so I'll put it at the end.
I think the text about confidentiality is highly problematic. We all
seem to agree that their are tradeoffs between confidentiality and
getting a job done. As an example, everyone I've talked to seems to
agree that when a detailed investigation takes place, the respondent is
going to find out that some report is made.
If I were going to participate in this process, I would want to better
understand what information would be disclosed to whom. At what point
in the process is the respondent likely to find out? Will they find out
the identity of the reporter? The subject? Many similar questions
exist. I don't expect this document to answer these questions. I think
the ombudsteam has an obligation to answer these questions and failure
to write down answers to the questions means the process is very unfair.
Whether I want to report or disclose information may depend on who will
learn that information.
So, I propose that the list of items that the ombudsteam needs to
document in their procedures should be expanded to include "Description
of the current thinking of when disclosures of confidential information
are made in the process and to whom."
I'm sure the wording can be improved.
In addition, " All information brought to the Ombudsteam shall be kept
in strict confidence." is too strong. The later sentence about striving
for confidentiality is more accurate and believable.
Pete seemed to believe that the above sentence might be intended to be
scoped to some narrow purpose. It needs to be changed in some way.
----------------------------------------
When I heard that the IESG added text saying that the ombudsteam cannot
remove a leader, I felt a great anger. How could they do that? I
explored that feeling and realized that I was deeply disappointed, sad
and afraid. I hoped that our leadership would commit to holding
themselves to high standard and would be committed to resolving problems
when our leaders engage in harassing behavior.
However, what I hear when I read that change is the IESG has decided to
exclude itself and its appointments of working group chairs from review
of the ombudsteam. On knowledge and belief, I assert that that IESG
members have engaged in harassing behavior over the years and there are
ongoing problems involving working group chairs. I'm relieved
that I personally have not been subjected to behavior for which removal
from a leadership position would be an appropriate remedy. However,
given that harassment does happen within our leadership, it seems likely
that removal will sometimes be the right approach.
I suspect the IESG intends me to hear something else. Pete says that is
the case.
That doesn't matter; the statement is so loud that anything you may have
tried to say is lost in the shouting of my emotional reaction. The IESG
had a chance to embrace the idea that our leadership is accountable and
chose for whatever reason to step away from it. I've asked others to
review the change and the reaction I got was a strong negative emotional
reaction that the IESG would not support a viable mechanism for removing
a leader.
Pete proposes that the ombudsteam could effectively exclude a leader by
preventing them from attending meetings. There's nothing in the
document that suggests this is how to remove a leader. If I were
subjected to that remedy, I'd make an appeal that the ombudsteam had
taken on power specifically denied to them by trying to remove me from
my leadership position. I suspect some ombudsteam members will be
uncomfortable given the language in the document trying to effectively
remove a leader.
The emotional effect on subjects and reporters who read this
document and find their need for a chance at redress is denied is huge.
I am in the strongest possible disagreement with this text and the
process that lead to it.
The IESG is highly conflicted with regard to the question of remedies
applied to IETF leadership. Having such a remedy be removed as a
decision taken by the IESG is entirely inappropriate. Yes, the previous
text was broken, and the document couldn't have been approved with it
present. However, the IESG took on the decision of whether to fix the
text or remove it themselves. The IESG decided to replace that text
with a positive statement denying the ombudsteam the ability to remove
leaders. Even if you intended something else, the IESG took an
affirmative stand that partially exempts our leadership from the
anti-harassment process.
I believe this issue must be fixed in the document. I believe the IESG
has a significant conflict-of-interest with regard to this issue and has
displayed a lack of sensitivity to that conflict in the process it has
used to date. I request the IESG be sensitive to this conflict and
adopt a procedure that might be even more sensitive to the issue than
usual because it has already displayed a lack of sensitivity.
With regard to the specific question of how do you provide a way to
address leaders that need removal, Pete and I tried to brainstorm
solutions. However we ran out of time because I needed to run off to
another meeting.