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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 14 March 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 8F2E81A0218; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 1oCOZUMSulWm; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 025CE1A0211; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YWtbq-000M6v-55; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:28:38 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:28:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
Message-ID: <BBAC02A161976866C05D31CC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <5504870B.8070101@bogus.com>
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> <55019E72.4090004@qti.qualcomm.com> <tslfv9a2t6p.fsf@mit.edu> <36671C44-DE53-4AC9-B8EA-465BF97B2FDB@piuha.net> <tsly4n0zo6g.fsf@mit.edu> <550350C4.9040201@qti.qualcomm.com> <5503914A.7060209@gmail.com> <5503BF22.5020902@gmail.com> <55046AB2.5050602@bogus.com> <FA06C6BE8A6E8722000B590C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5504870B.8070101@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OxIBEBO95cSYCvFgJx5DsL20wL0>
Cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@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: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 21:28:46 -0000


--On Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:07 -0700 joel jaeggli
<joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

>> First, we've had no previous experience with the "recall
>> process".  The example I assure you are referring to was one
>> in which commitments to sign had been collected and it was
>> clear that the recall process would be initiated if the
>> individual involved did not resign, but he did.
> 
> You are incorrect, the process was initiated.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg
> 10887.html
> 
> It was not necessary for it to run to completion.

You are correct.  My apologies.  It was, as I think you pointed
out, never fully initiated to remove someone for bad behavior or
malfeasance.

The main point of my note, however, remains that the recall
process --at least past the point of the Secretariat approving
petitions and announcing the petition and signer-- is
inconsistent with claims of confidentiality.

    john