At 06:55 AM 3/13/2015, Jari Arkko wrote:
Folks,
The IESG has noted the recent discussions on this document. It is my intent as
the sponsoring AD to let the discussion continue so that we can reach a
reasonable conclusion, ask the authors to submit a new revision, and then
perform a brief new last call around those changes to ensure that we didn?t
miss anything.
Jari
Hi Jari -
Thanks to Ray's note, I'm a bit more sanguine about the legal aspects of this
process. Which finally led me to consider why I was still feeling unease.
Basically, I'm still thinking there are issues with allowing one member of the
IETF (the ombudsman) to dictate to another with respect to their behavior
within the IETF up to and including exclusion. There are probably issues as
well with situations where the "offender" is a member of the same organization
as the ombudsman or a member of a direct competitor for that matter.
Then there's the issue that the ombudsmen winnowed from the IETF would be
amateurs.
So instead - let's not do it that way. Instead, let's out source it and hire
professionals.
The Ombudsmen shall be human resources management qualified employees of the
IETF Secretariat or the ISOC board of trustees or collectively a third party
human resource management or arbitration organization contracted for by the
IETF Secretariat or ISOC board of trustees to fulfill the role of Ombudsmen.
The IETF chair, IESG and IAB shall have no input into the selection or
retention of the specific Ombudsmen but may be involved in the selection of the
contract organization.
If there really is a problem then we should be funding the solution, not
playing at HR. The IETF members skills are in (or should be in) technology,
not human resource problem resolution and the thought of appointing any of them
(including - specifically - myself) as ombudsmen with real power fills me with
dread.
I would probably go with contracting for human resource services over direct
employees as I don't expect our needs to be that great.
Later, Mike