IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Tue, 22 October 2013 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D75221E8083 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9d0wVVmxepzr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3437A21F9DD6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tytso@thunk.org>) id 1VYjjK-0005IE-0b; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:43:10 +0000
Received: by closure.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 0466758087B; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=thunk.org; s=mail; t=1382478188; bh=w7Hsd+r/2QRlzEHRO+iKLH0hvzjh67oGliKnii2Va9Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cgDWghZ6aErSFzsAaACPop4iQ7TnHlgz2h9C0z4nmuByCJfc9+BvjWixXhGGjw1Us HwIsQK94O1FbcgSfJWrHn6tDheT8T6ggVmfKRgHgBjEL4j+YuITJ5J8uu5hocBCOEA Aj6iA/t4hYaLzaD4kxpma4xeH1TqCFFmWQ//VQWo=
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:43:07 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Anti-Harassment Policy
Message-ID: <20131022214307.GA2603@thunk.org>
References: <B728B514-BC07-4D6E-899E-385C03C37430@ietf.org> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA6FB41@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <20131022093052.GF9517@thunk.org> <151B3C7B-907C-494F-B5FA-2D70C93EF2B4@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <151B3C7B-907C-494F-B5FA-2D70C93EF2B4@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:43:35 -0000

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:15:13PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> The path is harassment->ombudsbeing, not harassment->wg chair.  I
> would expect the ombudsperson to push back at this point unless
> something inappropriate was said.  If someone says "that's a stupid
> idea, because FOO" and "because FOO" is valid, then it would be
> appropriate for the ombudsperson to say to the offending party, "you
> know, you didn't need to say that was a stupid idea—all you needed
> to say was 'because FOO.'".  OTOH, if the offending party said "I'm
> going to cut off a deer's head and leave it in your refrigerator if
> you don't stop denying that FOO," then that would elicit a different
> response.

What about a slide presentation in a wg discussion in perpass which
included the following image?

     http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/tag/nsa/

Bjoern Hoehrmann has already asserted he believes it would be
considered harassment.

						- Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email