IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 20 March 2015 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 EDD721A6F7B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 JQEwwUwoLP5V for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FBF1A6F11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9622CC5F; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:22:58 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5HEhJodzaO9; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:22:58 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C7E2CC5D; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:22:57 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_945FC2E5-7436-4E1F-AF22-0132F25DA55E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BFAD9B9A5E18EA3882318BA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:23:00 -0500
Message-Id: <965AA861-EAB8-4DCE-BB9B-9D02BE63AE68@piuha.net>
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> <4BFAD9B9A5E18EA3882318BA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6EVDmpgwHj5RhQGnuRgaB46oH_k>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:23:03 -0000

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.)

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email