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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

Have there been harassment cases in the IETF, using the definition
given in the I-D?

I'm thinking that most cases of harassment (here and elsewhere) are
either a) not sufficiently notable (people being jerks without causing
too much grief), or b) so notable as to merit civil or criminal law
action.  Clearly there's not much for us to do about (b), and doing
much about (a) seems unwarranted.  No doubt there is also a class (c)
of jerks who won't stop being jerks, but they risk either escalating
to legal action territory ((b)), or being ostracized.

IMO for type (c) cases there is a lot to say for using social stigma,
because otherwise we're just politicizing everything.  But perhaps we
have too much of (c), in which case a formal mechanism for dealing
with harassment becomes desirable.  This is partly why I ask the above
question.

Or perhaps we're trying to avoid ever getting to where (c) is a
problem?  Perhaps we have new participants who are demonstrating
heretofore-unparalleled skill at being jerks?  Or perhaps this is a
tick-the-box exercise (because other comparable organizations are
doing this?).

Also, I'm +1 to Michael StJohn's question about ISOC and IETF trust
legal review.

Finally, we certainly have cases where discussions get heated and some
participants end up using the sort of language that would be a
behavior problem and which yet does not meet the definition of
harassment given in the I-D.  The remedy generally is for someone
(anyone, often WG chairs, ADs, but not necessarily) to warn them
privately.  If that works well enough (I think it does), then why
wouldn't that also work for harassment as defined in this I-D, and if
it doesn't work well enough, then is the scope of harassment here too
narrow?

I'd rather continue using the social tools at our disposal as long as
possible.  Once we have formal tools we'll have to use them, which
will make the IETF somewhat less pleasant a forum.  Our hand can
always be forced here, and you can see I'm curious as to whether
that's what's happened.

BTW, I have observed participants at the hotel bar using language that
I consider inflammatory but which they don't, and which one might
consider to fall into the definition given in the I-D but which others
might not.  A common example that might test the given definition is
disagreement as to whether sharp criticism of country A's policies is
distinguishable from (and therefore permissible) harassment based on
the ethnicity/religion/... of the people of country A.  I don't really
want to see an official body of the IETF become embroiled in deciding
such matters.  It's all unpleasant, and I'd rather participants kept
these opinions to themselves.  But it happens, and I've a feeling that
the Ombudsteam will become one of those highly politicized bodies, to
our collective detriment.  In the worst case I can see civil lawsuits
(e.g., defamation) resulting, which is one reason to want the lawyers
of the entities whose pockets might be affected to review this!

Nico
--