On 3/19/15 9:40 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
I object to:
a) The idea that harassment "based on" anything other than the listed
attributes is OK (it shouldn't be).
Good. That's why the paragraph above says that the document, "does not
attempt to further precisely define behavior that falls under the set of
procedures identified here, nor does it attempt to list every possible
attribute that might be the basis for harassment". The intent was to not
limit harassment to things listed, and this is the language that we used
to accomplish that. The text in the last paragraph in section 2 was
*additive*, not limiting, at least as far as we were told.
b) The idea that we should accept any legal jurisdiction's definition of
harassment (if it happens over mailing lists or IM, which jurisdiction(s)
shall apply?). Certainly we shouldn't limit our definition to that of
legal jurisdictions, but we shouldn't let ourselves be made to use any
particular legal jurisdiction's definition either.
You object to the Ombudsteam responding to a complaint of harassment
based on a definition in a some legal jurisdiction (which is what the
current text says), or you object to them being forced to respond in a
particular way based on a definition in some legal jurisdiction (which
the current text does not say and does not require)?
The other issues you bring up have been previously discussed.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478