Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sam,

I cannot overemphasize enough that I'm speaking as one AD here, and by "one
AD" I mean that I haven't discussed this with anyone else on the IESG ...

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Sam Hartman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> John Klensin, Brian Carpenter, myself and perhaps Dave Crocker have all
> raised objections that the recall process is unlikely to work in cases
> of harassment.  We've each discussed problems with the committee itself
> both in terms of fairness and confidentiality of information provided by
> subject and reporter.
>

Right. That's what I think I've seen.

If I'm reading this part of the conversation accurately, at least some of
those people are objecting that the recall process is unlikely to work in
any case.

If I needed to be recalled, I'm not sure it matters much why I need to be
recalled (harassment, or some other reason).

If the vast majority of the community thinks the recall process would work
perfectly if we ever tried to use it running to completion, all they have
to do is say so.

But if that's not the case ... I would encourage people to think about
fixing the recall process more broadly.

I understand that some of the mechanics may very well be different for
harassment, but I would encourage people to make the process work in the
general case, and then start making changes to accommodate the ways that
harassment is different.

Maybe it's not possible to have a process for harassment removals that
looks anything like recalls for other reasons, but I would encourage the
community to special-case as little as possible here.

Speaking only for myself, of course.

And I'm here all week, if people want to corner me in the hall and talk. Or
something.

Spencer, who suspects that both Adrian and Pete can sign a recall petition
for me on Thursday morning, if that was the right thing to do :D