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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 16 March 2015 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 0C4B51A9234; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 zXWK0mdvg_OX; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F003C1A9169; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CBACC40132; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:32:59 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1426541579; bh=jpVptTo+eRswzcrvT+CWHkCalhj1GVNlY6PMX6Ua/Jw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=J5B6+uW/MgR/nAda686pM0YcO4Ju2y6GuVGPvxx7LRhAHjiI2cBynrVrBTu3wAKv6 7jop66YplnJpDEJpysl6SRlluClGRssKe6n7I9fTvSj1BrUon8peHJ6dJFVgDmme/u iT5K2YhBwfUOt1P7kT3dqxRTZD630EVAGARbRfW8=
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:32:59 -0400
Message-ID: <1544872.AbDPndUUjT@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-46-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150316204616.GK2179@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <tsly4n0zo6g.fsf@mit.edu> <55073F22.6000606@dcrocker.net> <20150316204616.GK2179@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UQsKolLUK5aLq_pqWaginMmkjKs>
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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:33:03 -0000

On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:46:16 PM Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:37:54PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > However I'm not clear about the pragmatics, given the the Ombud, or
> > whoever makes the request, has confidentiality requirements that limit
> > what they can say to the person with the authority to remove the
> > miscreant...
> 
> Someone who has no formal authority but is influential has two ways to
> make that influence effective:
> 
> 1.  Lobby in private, saying nasty things about someone or whatever to
> someone who _does_ have authority.  In that case, the abuse-redress
> procedure actually needs to go after the person with the actual power,
> because that's what's being exercised.
> 
> 2.  Be abusive in public.  In this case, the official office-holder
> either needs to do something or else, again, be implicated in the
> abuse.

I had avoided reading this draft until now, because things like this mostly 
end up making me angry when I read them, but this thread finally put me over 
the edge to read the draft.

Having read the draft for the first time, I'm completely lost about what it 
covers.  I have a hard time envisioning non-disruptive harassment.  If someone 
is being harassed, I have a hard time believing it won't be detrimental to 
their IETF participation.

I think the draft is very vague about what it covers and provides no guidance 
on how to know how one "determines that harassment has taken place".

There's no way to know what abusive is, so how can one know how to avoid this.  
I've said negative perhaps even nasty things about people involved in the IETF 
in private, but as far as I know, they were all true.  Am I a harasser now?

Scott K