On 3/20/15 11:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I agree with the points from Scott, Christian, and you John that it is
possible that confidentiality is not maintained on a case involving
a continuously bad actor. (Assuming we get to such a bad situation
to begin with, which I hope we wont.)
Existing policy has addressed the problem of visibly bad actors in the
past[1]. There no reason to expect that they won't do so in the future
(nor should we abrogate responsibility for doing so). One can imagine a
scenario where ombudspersons and community participants are
independently pursing amelioration of a problem. there doesn't seem to
be a reason why the acitivities would not occur independently in such a
case.
My question to you though is what effect do you believe that observation
should have on our procedures? Are you suggesting that they should
not by default be confidential?
Jari
[1] - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38293.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature