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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 20 March 2015 19:55 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 22EAE1B3029; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:59 -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 1m6oxjysUVCo; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776F81B3026; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F68161D; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:58 -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=nc+GX6uIO/eyiKqHG8it CsP7LaI=; b=qGgXSHApQhviA55SqJhdPVTkM5D6vYdVkb4e9IFR8aTbeCJi7MGv IHhESbFbE40KxrnLRbXP3IzjBjlDaoxkM/xd7FuIZHro+NFhI5xZP/yQ7AYWUjEu uv9BF2x4+mjGtoRUxJ0P/oGAGBM9A8SlzONu6DATMt4lNqyPkSjzC8A=
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C8D1161A; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oier21 with SMTP id r21so100111625oie.1; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.250.193 with SMTP id ze1mr67655755obc.70.1426881357857; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.213.138 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5509BB58.4060307@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <5503914A.7060209@gmail.com> <5503BF22.5020902@gmail.com> <2AE2D092-C32A-46EB-88CA-71366965F4D7@cisco.com> <5505D873.1040203@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbQf_2WUn8PrUXCMy_3w6tt+iJw0tyF=gUojA5fwRXJNg@mail.gmail.com> <550736E0.6080101@dcrocker.net> <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>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:55:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjYsQisfM=PyE=5E41W4vc4Jc=EKK+Dmpt3zbPan9k9LA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SIRVzmSgps8p1wrzQkYCSnifWYI>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@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, 20 Mar 2015 19:55:59 -0000

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> [...]

Thank you, that's well-reasoned.

In the event of a non-public harassment event and subsequent report,
the Ombudsteam can promise confidentiality to the Reporter, Subject,
and Respondent.  If mediation succeeds, confidentiality can be had for
all and as to all details, and if need be the participants can be
enjoined to keep the matter confidential.  When mediation is
insufficient (e.g., Respondent refuses to cooperate, repeats the
harassment, goes public) all bets are off but the Ombudsteam can and
should continue to afford confidentiality to such details as need not
and have not been made public, and should withhold public commentary
even when such details are made public by others.

Even for public harassment events, the Ombudsteam should promise
confidentiality as to private discussions involving the Ombudsteam
about that event, with the same caveats as above.

Nico
--