Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 13 March 2015 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 7EF491AC3D8; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 LQmiRR0vsVcX; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABF71AC3D5; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACF1B8087; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=iao7ij+TrHStfhZ4pQ1K xqJ/CSI=; b=keCc8nV4jB1ebUa4LosNuQl9rzqKPpriRlEkCYTqQB9YAAj2hArM MU1hJ5guWRJazxWDwbrNT1en93yEPMVWH6cyhBTgxleIABUHfgYqEHiAJkw/i0XO YrTpZk+mtMwPficU/XNSoeoPCSaVKrflrgkjNw22tQBtKH3bfdygXEo=
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6334EB8086; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iegc3 with SMTP id c3so79502101ieg.3; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.85.82 with SMTP id p18mr53872352icl.58.1426215940039; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.130.66 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <tslzj7i2wid.fsf@mit.edu>
References: <20150116152211.25947.49086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20150117174430.9A0471ACE15@ietfa.amsl.com> <20150306163724.GA32205@verdi> <tsl385im2yp.fsf@mit.edu> <781553AA-EA2C-4057-9888-491C80A780DA@piuha.net> <54FE045D.3080606@qti.qualcomm.com> <tslr3sxep1l.fsf@mit.edu> <54FE6297.4090008@qti.qualcomm.com> <tslzj7i2wid.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:05:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjPG8+gLeEnoNc7W37rXEq7CWaj3_Ohm+REdjOn6tV8DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F-dn3I1MLmOdVWqk3_7jPo1BP3U>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@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, 13 Mar 2015 03:05:41 -0000

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:
> However, reading this draft, I'm filled with sadness, disappointment and
> worry when I think about some of the details.  I do not think this draft
> is ready and I think we have some more work to do.  I don't support the
> idea that what we have is good enough and we should run with it and
> incrementally improve later.  Also, after reading Dave Crocker's review
> and discussing with him off-list, I think he has points that critically
> need to be considered.  In particular, Dave's point about distinguishing
> interpersonal difficulty from harassment and not focusing on asking
> subjects to act differently in the case of harassment seems important.

Yes, this.  Harassment is the sort of thing that's difficult to be
objective about in every case.  I hope we don't formalize this too
much, else it will be too easy to ostracize good people who
unintentionally offended someone.

Regarding confidentiality, I'll simply point out that at the limit,
when a legal process is involved and discovery is triggered (and
testimony) there is no confidentiality.  We shouldn't promise that
which we can't deliver.  This should be pretty obvious, I'd think.

As to removal, as long as there is a process for removal, whether the
ombusteam itself decides it or not is not that important to me.

Cheers,

Nico
--