Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 3/9/15 3:14 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> we did discuss the leadership-as-respondent issues during IESG Evaluation, and we concluded keeping these procedures and recall separate was best. Pete or Adrian can give details if you're interested.

The short answer is that the IESG generally thought that "crossing the 
streams" was a bad idea. Imagine that we do get to the particular point 
of horror, that someone in leadership has harassed someone in such a way 
that the Ombudsteam concludes the only appropriate remedy is that they 
are unable to attend future meetings or participate in list discussions, 
*and* that person refused to resign their post. Even if they keep the 
fact of the harassment confidential and simply said, "I will be unable 
to attend meetings in the future for personal reasons, nor will I be 
able to participate in WG list discussions, but I still wish to remain 
as AD", that's really plenty enough impetus for a recall committee to be 
formed and remove the person from their post.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]