Hi.
I really appreciate Sam's efforts and those of several others to
refine the details of what the Ombudsteam can and cannot do in
various situations and how those situations are defined. I also
strongly agree with Mike St.Johns's recent posting about
professionals rather than, especially, amateurs chosen by a
Nomcom and given a bit of training. However, I want to take a
step back and make two observations.
First, there is a difference between peer to peer harassment and
harassment that involves, or may be perceived as involving,
abuse of power. I think the draft does quite well about the
first -- the confidentiality provisions are right, the focus on
remedying problems and preventing recurrences is just about
right, etc.
Harassment that involves the appearance of abuse of power is
more of a problem: We can say that the recall process can be
used, but the recall process is unworkable, especially if
substantially any discussion about the harassment incident(s) or
its investigation are required to be treated as confidential.
From an outside view, use of the model as documented when there
is an appearance of abuse of power is likely to be
indistinguishable from "cover up" and tuning the boundary
between, e.g., "management" and everyone else or even whether
petitions are needed if the Ombudsteam initiates the recall
doesn't help in that regard.
I don't want to be facetious about that, but a reading of the
document and recent discussion threads leads me to wonder
whether we need separate models for peer to peer harassment and
perceived abuse of power (that might involve harassment, but
might not be limited to it).
Second, I think we need to remember that, if the Ombudsprocess
works well, as I think we would like to assume it usually will,
it will bring about changes of behavior through education,
persuasion, and even if necessary, a threat or two leading to
either changed behavior or a resignation.
Only if that fails do we get into a situation in which remedies
should be considered that are involuntary as far as the
Respondent is concerned and that have the effect of isolating
the bad acts of a bad actor from the community. Viewed that
way, which I think is appropriate, there is a lot less
difference between "barring someone from a mailing list (or
meeting) in which they have behaved badly and can be expected to
continue to do so" and "removing someone from a position that
has been part of a harassment event or other bad behavior". If
the first two are justified, the third is too and we should not
be discussing separate and more time-consuming mechanisms. I
think the argument that the third is not appropriate for the
Ombudsteam to apply because we have other mechanisms or it
doesn't involve as much due (or undue) process as those existing
mechanisms then we shouldn't be talking about the Ombudsteam
removing someone from a mailing list either because we have
procedures for dealing with posting rights, procedures that
involve considerably more process (and protections and public
scrutiny) than an internal decision by the Ombusteam.
best,
john