Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 20:09 UTC
Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBB11A8891; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sh1VGR2PCjTF; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08B541A00F9; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.111.2] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A6A8C40061; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:09:33 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1426709374; bh=PVxZiWDWohd80QbMKncg3ArUFh5fgTOgvhyFU0cbRew=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=Yro6vu+zkzSKQvVFOr8jrXrjpApxbSck0O7r/vzVb7/X7H1vyZQiG7XTrhkECfukV P9vLt5kB9hWDB9uUCliejwXMi0xMK26AmJWWVpnbukVncXh13K+ej9LiBjMrIADxRq 89aZe3z3r2VeBGJUyFbjbYWfTP6KQ5/C9gD747sA=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <5509BB58.4060307@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <5503914A.7060209@gmail.com> <5503BF22.5020902@gmail.com> <2AE2D092-C32A-46EB-88CA-71366965F4D7@cisco.com> <5505D873.1040203@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbQf_2WUn8PrUXCMy_3w6tt+iJw0tyF=gUojA5fwRXJNg@mail.gmail.com> <550736E0.6080101@dcrocker.net> <20150316203250.GJ2179@mx1.yitter.info> <55073F22.6000606@dcrocker.net> <20150316204616.GK2179@mx1.yitter.info> <55074AC1.9080500@dcrocker.net> <20150316214620.GO2179@mx1.yitter.info> <550751AC.7090108@dcrocker.net> <55075EBA.4000905@gmail.com> <5509BB58.4060307@qti.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:09:26 -0400
To: IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7BBD194A-A4BA-48E6-9B5E-BF0040BF64E8@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/61Fpii6kEKUnazO_xUODXf5klkk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:09:37 -0000
On March 18, 2015 1:52:24 PM EDT, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >On 3/16/15 5:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 17/03/2015 10:57, Dave Crocker wrote: >> ... >> >>> Public vs. private is entirely orthogonal to 'formally powerful' vs. >>> 'has leverage but no formal authority'. >>> >>> By way of example: >>> >>> A document writer has made statements to a participant that >violate >>> the boundaries acceptable to the Ombud team. The statements were >made >>> in private, but have been sufficiently verified. The Ombud feels >that >>> the document writer needs to be removed from any position of >leverage in >>> the IETF, other than "regular participant". >>> >>> Currently, it's the Chair(s) who have the authority to remove >that >>> person, not the Ombud. But confidentiality constrains the Ombud >>> possibly from making the request and certainly from explaining why. >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> ps. Extra credit: Note that the confidentiality thing prevents any >>> sort of persistent application of a decision. There's no way to bar >>> someone from being a document writer going forward, even if we >figure >>> out how to handle the immediate situation. >> Right. And the only solution that I can see is what would happen >> inside a company in such a situation: extend the envelope of the >> confidential discussion to include the person(s) with that >> authority. >> > >I think we have now circled back to the reason the original text ended >up in the document in the first place: > >We really want the Ombudsteam to be as confidential as possible. That's > >certainly important for the Respondent, for whom public accusations can > >be destructive and could bring legal liability for both them *and* the >IETF, but I think the most important reason for confidentiality is for >the sake of the Subject: Being the recipient of sexual, racial/ethnic, >or other sorts of harassment (in contrast to most other sorts of bad >behavior) can be embarrassing and shaming for the recipient, and can >make one the object of all sorts of horrible negative comments. Of >course, it would be perfectly lovely if we lived in a world where >comments along the lines of "she was asking for it" or "he's just being > >overly sensitive to any comment about race" or "she seemed to be >happily >participating in it" were not the first things out of people's mouths, >but we don't live in that world. And it would be nice if people did not > >look upon the targets of harassment as victims to be pitied, but they >do. > >Because of that, the best thing to do is to limit as much as possible >the number of people who get exposed to the information about the >incident. In the current text, even in the most extreme cases of >remedies (e.g., removal from a meeting), the only people -- beyond the >Ombudsteam -- that need to be made aware of the imposition of a remedy >are people who are under contract to the IAOC/ISOC (i.e., the >secretariat), which means that some level of confidentiality can be >contractually imposed. As soon as we give the ability to the Ombudsteam >to remove someone from an appointed position (NomCom-appointed or >otherwise), members of the open volunteer community are going to have >to >be made aware of the existence of the remedy, whether it's the entire >IESG ("This person can no longer be a chair for any WG"), the IAB >("This >person can no longer be confirmed as an AD") or others. Maybe we want >to >go through the exercise of trying to figure out what sorts of >confidentiality "envelopes" we want to have and examine how this >document interacts with 2026, 2418, and 7437, but it's not going to be >a >pleasant exercise. > >The thing I like about the original text, and reason that I'm OK with >in >Sam's text, is that it limits how many people need to know the result; >the Ombudsteam removes the person from the situation that is causing >the >problem (from a mailing list or a meeting in the extreme case), but can >only tell the Respondent that it would be a good idea to resign at that >point. If things go the right way, the person resigns and the outcome >is >identical to having the Ombudsteam remove them (with potentially less >people having to be told). If things go badly and they refuse to resign >and instead make a stink, the outcome doesn't seem all that much worse >than the stink such a person will make after the Ombudsteam summarily >dismisses them from their position. And again, it avoids the Ombudsteam >having to figure out who in the community needs to be told, and what >particular details they need to know. > >pr Since the accused can't be kept quiet, is it realistic to have a document that purports to provide confidentiality? Unless the identity of the accuser and the alleged victim are unknown to the accused (which would create its own set of problems), the process can't really be called confidential. Scott K
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins
- What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draf… Brian E Carpenter
- Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ha… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnicke… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnicke… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC2418bis (was - Re: What is a "management p… Dave Crocker
- RFC2418bis (was - Re: What is a "management posit… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Barry Leiba
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Sam Hartman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Pete Resnick
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Sam Hartman
- RE: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Christian Huitema
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Scott O. Bradner
- Sam's text and way forward on the last call of dr… Jari Arkko
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Michael StJohns
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Eliot Lear
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Jari Arkko
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Eliot Lear
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Pete Resnick
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… John C Klensin
- Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Ted Faber
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… George Michaelson
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Jari Arkko
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Nico Williams
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Nico Williams
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Sam Hartman
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Sam Hartman
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Michael StJohns
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… John Leslie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Michael StJohns
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… James Woodyatt
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick