At 11:01 AM 3/19/2015, Eliot Lear wrote:
You asked, Jari.
The more power you vest in someone the more they should be accountable
to the community. Removing someone from an activity is a pretty
momentous activity. Making ADs unable to function as ADs or WG chairs
unable to function as chairs is a big deal. It may impact peoples'
livelihoods. The same holds for people who are intimidated or harassed
into taking actions they would not otherwise take. The community needs
to be able to hold people accountable for those decisions (or lack thereof).
I'm going to agree strongly with Elliot and highlight something:
"The COMMUNITY needs to be able to hold people accountable...." This means,
that its just not the Chair, the IESG or the IAOC's wheelhouse, but the rest of
us get a say, especially if the Chair, IESG or IAOC is excluding itself from
applicability.
I made a suggestion elsewhere - I'm going to make it again. We, as techies,
are not even remotely qualified to be given the power of "life" and "death" in
terms of excluding people from participation ("it may impact people's
livelihood") and adhoc training will not rectify this.
Please, can we hire professionals? Set the parameters, set the penalties (and
have them apply to all); let the professionals deal with any issues that come
up within those parameters; not involve the membership in any accusations of
cross company, cross country, cross culture bias; and avoid internal witch
hunts.
Mike
Eliot
On 3/19/15 3:40 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Jari can speak for himself when he gets off of the plane, but I do not
believe his intention was to re-open the structure of the entire document.
Thatâ??s right.
Anyway, Iâ??m reading the responses far too quickly to provide
good feedback yet on what Eliot said. And I need to close
the laptop in a few minutes.
But to explain: we have to solve the issue that had
been raised, and there are some alternative ways
to do that. I have a strong preference to staying with
the current document structure. Part of my goal in
sending out the initial message was to gauge if we are
happy with the type of text that Sam proposed, or
whether people believe bigger surgery is needed.
I think some of the alternative designs may have
issues beyond needing more time to edit, but
for the moment we should put that aside. I was
trying to determine if there are other proposals than
Samâ??s on the table.
Jari