Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-08.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

I wanted to thank the design team and the editors for
good work. I’m very happy with this version.

I did, however, have a couple of editorial nits that I wanted
to bring up.

Section 5:

o  At the other end of the spectrum the Ombudsteam could decide that
     the Respondent is no longer permitted to participate in a
     particular IETF activity, for example, ejecting them from a
     meeting or requiring that the Respondent can no longer attend
     future meetings.  If the Respondent holds a management position ...

I’d suggest adding a sentence here about the purpose of the remedy,
even if there’s a whole section about it later. For instance: “… no
longer attend future meetings as a way to ensure that  a serious
harassment can not continue. If the Respondent … "

Section 5.1:
  o  In the event that an AD declines to act on the recommendation of
      the Ombudsteam and fails to convince the Ombudsteam, the
      Ombudsteam should raise the issue with the whole IESG while
      continuing to attempt to retain confidentiality.  The IESG may
      choose to reorganize the responsibilities for working groups
      within its own structure so that the conflicted AD is no longer in
      the direct management path.

Where does “declines to act” refer to? The previous bullet item, where
an AD is expected to follow the advice of the ombudsteam? I that case
“conflicted” is probably the wrong term. Or maybe I don’t understand
what you are trying to say here. If the AD disagrees with the
recommendation from the ombudsteam, there could be various
reasons for it, from being conflicted somehow to mere
disagreement etc.

Please clarify.

Section 5.1:
	   All such forced removals from management positions should be
	   considered by the Ombudsteam as acts of last resort.  That is, before
	   a Respondent is recommended for removal, the Ombudsteam should
	   discuss the situation with the Respondent giving them ample
	   opportunity to understand what might happen and to step down of their
	   own volition.

This text could perhaps be modified to also account for the fact that
not only are these removals last resort in the above sense, but also
in the sense that not all situations require removal/stepping down.

Jari