Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

At 11:01 AM 3/19/2015, Eliot Lear wrote:
>You asked, Jari.
>
>The more power you vest in someone the more they should be accountable
>to the community.  Removing someone from an activity is a pretty
>momentous activity.  Making ADs unable to function as ADs or WG chairs
>unable to function as chairs is a big deal.  It may impact peoples'
>livelihoods.  The same holds for people who are intimidated or harassed
>into taking actions they would not otherwise take.  The community needs
>to be able to hold people accountable for those decisions (or lack thereof).

I'm going to agree strongly with Elliot and highlight something:

"The COMMUNITY needs to be able to hold people accountable...."   This means, that its just not the Chair, the IESG or the IAOC's wheelhouse, but the rest of us get a say, especially if the Chair, IESG or IAOC is excluding itself from applicability.

I made a suggestion elsewhere - I'm going to make it again.  We, as techies, are not even remotely qualified to be given the power of "life" and "death" in terms of excluding people from participation ("it may impact people's livelihood")  and adhoc training will not rectify this.

Please, can we hire professionals?  Set the parameters, set the penalties (and have them apply to all); let the professionals deal with any issues that come up within those parameters; not involve the membership in any accusations of cross company, cross country, cross culture bias; and avoid internal witch hunts.

Mike





>Eliot
>
>On 3/19/15 3:40 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> Jari can speak for himself when he gets off of the plane, but I do not believe his intention was to re-open the structure of the entire document. 
>> That’s right.
>>
>> Anyway, I’m reading the responses far too quickly to provide
>> good feedback yet on what Eliot said. And I need to close
>> the laptop in a few minutes. 
>>
>> But to explain: we have to solve the issue that had
>> been raised, and there are some alternative ways
>> to do that. I have a strong preference to staying with
>> the current document structure. Part of my goal in
>> sending out the initial message was to gauge if we are
>> happy with the type of text that Sam proposed, or
>> whether people believe bigger surgery is needed.
>> I think some of the alternative designs may have
>> issues beyond needing more time to edit, but
>> for the moment we should put that aside. I was
>> trying to determine if there are other proposals than
>> Sam’s on the table.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>
>
>