Re: [88attendees] Anti-harassment policy and ombudsperson

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

Pycon's policy like every other one has trouble defining harassment beyond
a few things that are socially agreed on in a particular culture. They are
still open to ambiguity and challenge in borderline cases, and due to
differences between cultures. I don't think the IETF is going to be more
successful in creating a universal, objective definition of harassment.  I
believe we're better off supporting subjective, personal reports of
harassment, and providing tools to help resolve such conflicts.
On Nov 4, 2013 11:09 AM, "Monty Montgomery" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > If you look at the pycon incident, it's clear that both the "accused"
> and the "accuser" suffered way out of proportion to what was called for by
> the actual incident.   The whole fiasco would have come out hugely better
> for all involved if a clear policy had been in effect at that conference.
>
> Didn't pycon have a clear policy that simply wasn't followed?
>
> Monty
> _______________________________________________
> 88attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/88attendees
>