Re: Proposed IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* IETF Chair wrote:
>IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

So, someone who is being disciplined under this policy might want to
check it out to see how they might appeal such action, or how they can
ensure their continued access to the Standards process, or they might
simply want to make sure they are being treated fairly and within the
bounds of standard procedure. The policy contains nothing to that
effect.

A chair might find themself in a situation where they have to deal with
harassment and check out the policy to see how they should deal with it,
whether they should handle the matter on their own, or if they should
refer it to an ombudsperson, or whatever. The policy notes the existing
power granted to chairs, but then just says harassment "warrants special
attention" without elaborating.

An ombudsperson might refer to the policy to see how they can deal with 
harassment problems, or they might want to refer others to it, e.g. to
make others aware of their discretion and power, or when taking action
against someone, inform them of their rights to defend against actions
they find inappropriate. The policy just says "appropriate action will
be taken".

Instead, the policy goes to excessive lengths telling people they should
maintain behavioral norms. I think it is appropriate in such a policy to
establish some context, but going at it for too long makes it seem as if
something extraordinary is being asked of participants, as if it said
"Unlike other organisations, the IETF strives to create and maintain..."

I think the prelude should be shortened to be bare minimum, and instead
text of the nature discussed above should be added; possibly by way of
external references, e.g. if an RFC concerning the rights and responsi-
bilities of IETF ombudspersons is forthcoming, a reference to that would
address some concerns. I believe this can be done in few sentences.

>Harassment is unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior, in particular speech
>and behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates based on attributes like
>race, gender, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, disability,
>sexual orientation, or gender identity. Harassment of this sort will not be
>tolerated in the IETF. Harassment includes the use of offensive language or
>sexual imagery in public presentations and displays, degrading verbal comments,
>deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
>inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

I strongly object to listing "sexual imagery" here unless accompanied by
a much longer list that includes violent imagery, imagery of aggressive
or otherwise dangerous animals, death, illness, medical imagery, and
whatever else people might find intimidating, say Fort Meade engulfed in
lightning in a violent thunderstorm and the eye of Sauron montaged on
top of it.

I think "use of offensive language" should not be considered harassment
without linking it to purpose, intent, and other limiting factors. It is
common that people use language considered offensive by some unknowingly
e.g. due to cultural differences, limited language skills, or youth. The
beginning of this paragraph can also easily be read to suggest that mere
"unwelcome hostile speech" falls under the definition without additional
qualifiers.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/