ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

2015-03-13 16:04:27
Speaking only for myself:

On 3/13/15 12:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
old:
(The Ombudsteam can not impose that a Respondent
       who is in a IETF management position be removed from that
       position.  There are existing mechanisms within IETF process for
       the removal of people from IETF management positions that may be
       used as necessary.)

new:
The Ombudsteam MAY ask a respondent to consider resigning from an IETF
management position.  The Ombudsteam May remove a respondent from a
working group  or document editor position.  While this document does
not create additional procedures permitting a nomcom appointee be
removed, the Ombudsteam can exclude a respondent from meetings and
mailing lists and other activities, making it impossible for them to
carry out their appointed tasks.

- With regard to NomCom appointed positions, this is just fine, and in fact what the current text intended, while making it perfectly clear what was intended.

- I am ambivalent about the Ombudsteam being able to remove someone from a WG (editor/secretary/chair) position. While it certainly doesn't get into the morass that we do with NomCom-appointed positions, it seems to me that it's still a bit of "crossing-the-streams", and as far as I can tell the same kinds of things that can be done for NomCom-appointed positions (ask them to consider resigning their position, exclusion from meetings / mailing lists, etc.) would have equal effectiveness. So, I'm not sure it's necessary. But as I said, I'm ambivalent.

As for the thought experiment on how a recall might go after such an incident: I am certainly more sanguine than Sam. Presuming an incident where the Ombudsteam decides that an AD can no longer participate in meetings and mailing lists (already I would hope a *highly* unusual circumstance) *and* the AD goes haywire and refuses to relinquish their title (even more unlikely) *and* the "two sides" try to get their friends on the recall committee, *and* these supposed friends agree to participate in such a thing (I have a hard time imagining any of the people I know in the IETF being willing to do so), we still have the case that the (hopefully sane) ISOC-President-appointed recall committee chair is going to tell the committee, "Look, we are not deciding whether this person can start participating in meetings or on mailing lists again. They can't and that's not going to change. The only question is whether they get to keep their office in light of that fact." If at that (almost unimaginable) point a sufficient number of people on the recall committee are willing to be so destructive to the IETF that they are willing to participate in leaving the person in the position, I think I'm willing to live with the IETF going *boom*.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>