On 18/03/2015 06:32, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Fred" == Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
Fred> Someone else suggested “subject to the recall procedures”; I
Fred> second that. Consider, if you will, what the process for
Fred> removing a document author would actually be? I think it
Fred> would, perhaps, be an appeal, not a recall.
An appeal is clearly also the wrong approach for dealing with
harassment-related complaints.
I continue to believe that it's desirable to allow the Ombudsteam to
remove anyone who is not subject to a recall procedure.
It's hard to fault that logic. But we are kidding ourselves if we
think that confidentiality will always be preserved in that case.
There is running code. Where I live (New Zealand), there is very
strong legal support for "name suppression" by a court. It's quite
common for "a prominent New Zealander" to be charged with, and
convicted of, a serious offence against another person but to retain
name suppression, and it's a crime to reveal that name in any way.
But this is a small country, and if you are interested, it generally
takes about 5 minutes with Google to find the name. If I cited examples,
I'd be breaking the law. The IETF is an even smaller country.
A side effect is that victim's names sometimes leak too. I'm afraid
that is an unavoidable risk, but it means that the solution becomes
part of the problem.
Brian