On 17/03/2015 10:57, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
Public vs. private is entirely orthogonal to 'formally powerful' vs.
'has leverage but no formal authority'.
By way of example:
A document writer has made statements to a participant that violate
the boundaries acceptable to the Ombud team. The statements were made
in private, but have been sufficiently verified. The Ombud feels that
the document writer needs to be removed from any position of leverage in
the IETF, other than "regular participant".
Currently, it's the Chair(s) who have the authority to remove that
person, not the Ombud. But confidentiality constrains the Ombud
possibly from making the request and certainly from explaining why.
Right. And the only solution that I can see is what would happen
inside a company in such a situation: extend the envelope of the
confidential discussion to include the person(s) with that
authority.
Brian
d/
ps. Extra credit: Note that the confidentiality thing prevents any
sort of persistent application of a decision. There's no way to bar
someone from being a document writer going forward, even if we figure
out how to handle the immediate situation.