Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 13 March 2015 19:34 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 D72CF1A020A; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.465
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 BsJJb163K3Me; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 003371A01AE; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C1920662; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yR7LmZX5EYij; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:33:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-177-26-195.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.177.26.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:33:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id C58B082834; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:34:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
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>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:34:47 -0400
Message-ID: <tsly4n0zo6g.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/USjVhtS1dUD-k4L3pzO97jb5L3Q>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:56:56 -0700
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, 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: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:34:56 -0000
>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> writes: Jari> Sam, Cutting to the 2nd item, i.e., what effect the ombudsteam Jari> might have on leadership. Jari> I understand your concern Sam. Do you have a suggestion on how Jari> that should be addressed? As an aside, I think we all agree Jari> that leadership that misbehaves needs to be removed. The Jari> debate is about the mechanics - whether those indirect through Jari> effects of action from the ombudsteam, indirect via their Jari> recommendation, or more direct. OK. So my understanding is that you believe that we have consensus that leadership that harasses need to be able to be removed, but we don't have a workable solution and we don't want to block the current effort on that. If so, let's find a clean way of deferring that, and see if we can get people interested in working on the problem and coming up with a proposal. I'd like to take a stab to see if I understand what we do have consensus on: old: (The Ombudsteam can not impose that a Respondent who is in a IETF management position be removed from that position. There are existing mechanisms within IETF process for the removal of people from IETF management positions that may be used as necessary.) new: The Ombudsteam MAY ask a respondent to consider resigning from an IETF management position. The Ombudsteam May remove a respondent from a working group or document editor position. While this document does not create additional procedures permitting a nomcom appointee be removed, the Ombudsteam can exclude a respondent from meetings and mailing lists and other activities, making it impossible for them to carry out their appointed tasks. Rationale for the above: I think we should split handling of chairs and wg-level positions from nomcom stuff. The discussion to date seems to have focused on nomcom-level appointments, and we apparently don't have consensus to make changes to that in this document. However, I think we should carefully ask ourselves how we handle chair harassment. Recommending to the AD seems like the wrong approach. The AD isn't going to be in a position to know the facts, the AD is not going to be trained in harassment. As a manager I've sometimes been told by HR that I had to take certain actions; sometimes I agreed, sometimes I wished I had other options. However, sometimes the interest of (in that case the company, in this case the IETF) to avoid harassment are more important than an individual manager's preference. So, I'd like to float the idea that the Ombudsteam is in the best position to make harassment-related removals at that level. I've removed the sentence saying that the Ombudsteam cannot make leadership removals because it's too easy to read that as an affirmative statement against leadership removals. Instead, I've floated a specific instantiation of the idea that the Ombudsteam does have the power to make it impossible for a leader to do their job. I think it's important to confirm we have consensus on this point. It would be a huge mess for the Ombudsteam to try and do that and to discover we didn't have community support for that. In effect I'm arguing that it's important enough to make sure we're on the same page here that we float specific text for this issue and confirm it doesn't attract unresolvable objections. Pete has said on-list and in private discussions that he believes their is support for the Ombudsteam choosing remedies like this. I've removed the sentence talking about the existing procedures for removal. To respond to Stephen, Spencer and Nico, our existing recall procedure is entirely inadequate to the task. Let's have a thought exercise. First, we have a confidentiality problem. It's unclear how the Ombudsteam even gets in the position to say something leading to a recall petition. Let's imagine that somehow they get consent from the subject (and decide they don't need consent from the respondent) and make a statement like "We, the Ombudsteam assembled do hereby request and implore the community to recall Sam Hartman for harassment related reasons." Imagine what happens next. We have a flame fest where some people are demanding more information so they can evaluate whether to sign the recall petition, and others debate my qualifications in public. We've had a recall petition in recent memory. Even in a situation where there was strong agreement that the leader was not performing the job, it was difficult to get signatures. I claim this situation would be worse. I'd be speaking up saying that I was sensitive to concerns raised and I'd of course improve. I bet you'd never get the recall petition signed. But let's imagine still further than you somehow get a recall petition signed without a bunch of details becoming public. OK, now we seek volunteers for a recall committee. Of course I go to all my supporters and beg them to volunteer so I get a fair hearing. The subject and reporter probably do the same. For extra fun let's imagine that the subject volunteers. So a committee is seated including some of my best friends/supporters, the subject and some of their supporters and one or two people there because they thought volunteering was good. At the first meeting the committee asks for details and the Ombudsteam regretfully informs them that they cannot provide any because of confidentiality reasons. OK, so while we're imagining things let's further imagine that somehow the committee and Ombudsteam reach some agreement by which the Ombudsteam can share all their internal investigation information with the committee. Now we're simply faced with a biased set of folks with no harassment training trying to make a critical decision. There will be debates and second-guessing of the Ombudsteam's approach, there will be a huge mess. When one side or the other goes to their lawyer and points out this entire process is unfair, there's going to be a lot of sympathy and a lot of action on contingency and the lawyers make out big. But perhaps Stephen and Nico are proposing we bypass the Ombudsteam entirely. So, we have a subject and reporter begging the community to sign a recall petition giving them enough details of the harassment that the community members can make up their own decisions. That's hugely broken on a number of fronts. The subject will almost certain to be subjected to additional harassment. Even if successful you're left with the biased committee of untrained volunteers trying to do their own original investigation. For these reasons I think it entirely inappropriate to claim our existing procedures are adequate to the task. I think there are significant problems with the Ombudsteam making it impossible for a leader to do their job too. However, it may be something we have consensus on today, and it allows us to get a procedure in place while we work on something better. --Sam
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins
- What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draf… Brian E Carpenter
- Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ha… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnicke… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: Mailing lists [Last Call: <draft-farrresnicke… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC2418bis (was - Re: What is a "management p… Dave Crocker
- RFC2418bis (was - Re: What is a "management posit… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Barry Leiba
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Dave Crocker
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Sam Hartman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Pete Resnick
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Sam Hartman
- RE: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Christian Huitema
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Scott O. Bradner
- Sam's text and way forward on the last call of dr… Jari Arkko
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Michael StJohns
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Eliot Lear
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Jari Arkko
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Eliot Lear
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Pete Resnick
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… John C Klensin
- Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Ted Faber
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… George Michaelson
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Jari Arkko
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Nico Williams
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Nico Williams
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… joel jaeggli
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Sam Hartman
- RE: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Sam Hartman
- Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call o… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Michael StJohns
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… John Leslie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Michael StJohns
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… James Woodyatt
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Nico Williams
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05… Pete Resnick