"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
John> That statement also raises the "management position" issue on
John> which Brian and I have commented. And the only "existing
John> mechanisms" I know of amount to either recall (difficult,
John> inappropriate, or useless for reasons I explained in that note
John> plus the confidentiality problem Brian raised in his.
John> Moving away from hair-splitting and to the bottom line...
John> Because of the power and explicit and discretionary authority
John> the community gives them, I think it is appropriate and
John> probably necessary to hold ADs --and expect them to hold
John> themselves-- to a higher standards than random IETF
John> participants. Consequently, if the Ombudsteam has a
John> discussion about a harassment claim with an AD and the issue
John> cannot be explained by the AD to the Ombudsteam's
John> satisfaction, I'd expect the AD to either correct the behavior
John> forthwith or resign. If neither option is taken, if the
John> community is really serious about eliminating harassment, I
John> think the community wants the AD out of there and, for
John> effective operation of the IESG, replaced quickly. Put
John> differently, having such an AD linger on for many months (see
John> Note 1), doing whatever he or she was doing with (as Brian has
John> pointed out) full community knowledge of what is going on, is
John> not in the best interest of the IETF.
John> I'm also completely unpersuaded by "well, the AD can be
John> excluded from meetings and/or a mailing list". Sorry, but the
John> community simply doesn't need ADs who are forced to function
John> without the full range of tools available to them. Any AD who
John> is unable or unwilling to cease or correct harassing behavior
John> after the various interventions called for by the document
John> _and_ unwilling to resign should probably be removed for bad
John> judgment and insensitivity to the needs of WGs and document
John> processing in the community... and that should not require a 5
John> - 0 month (minimum) recall process.
I am in complete agreement with John's statement above.
In the interest of expedience I'm willing to settle for excluding nomcom
appointees from meetings and mailing lists in this document and working
on figuring out the details behind removals in the near future.
However I do not believe the recall process is appropriate at all for
harassment and do not believe excluding people from meetings and mailing
lists is the right approach for removal long-term. Excluding people
from meetings or mailing lists may well be the right approach for
harassing behavior in meetings or mailing lists.