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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 19 March 2015 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 C58F61A898A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.259
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 jUkUk8u7R68K for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C145D1A8987 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [67.211.120.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A7AD8A035 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:20:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:20:24 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt
Message-ID: <20150319122019.GM6046@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <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> <B714CBFE-5D3D-4293-91C2-534A3437EB24@piuha.net> <550AB35F.6090707@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <550AB35F.6090707@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GvAmYJosk8diJi0vtdWgp1291Hc>
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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:20:28 -0000

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:30:39AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> I'd therefore suggest we focus more on what the Ombudsteam are
> allowed to communicate, so I'd suggest:

[&c.]

I am much more comfortable with the direction Stephen is suggesting.
I do understand the concerns about harassment and so on, but that must
be reasonably balanced against completely remaking all our procedures
through the back door of the ombudsteam.  Most importantly, I think,
we must retain the tradition of avoiding too much specification of
mechanical detail and of trusting appointees' judgement when adhering
to principles.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com