Re: Proposed text for draft-farrresnickel-harassment-06

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 24 March 2015 02:16 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 DA5811B2B74 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 YeKFR3Ebb0TT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:16:20 -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 DB3EC1B2B75 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DF92044E; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:14:11 -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 esnvnuHQUUsh; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:14:10 -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; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 7EC1E87201; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed text for draft-farrresnickel-harassment-06
References: <20150323192109.GQ21267@localhost>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:15:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20150323192109.GQ21267@localhost> (Nico Williams's message of "Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:21:10 -0500")
Message-ID: <tsl384v9m3x.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pGATNWdZUXnVRlyZx9WIir8j9cU>
Cc: ietf@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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 02:16:21 -0000

Hi.

I will note that many people have expressed concerns about whether the
current document is fair from the point of view of a potential
respondent..  That is another part of building a safe IETF.  If we're
afraid of process and don't have confidence that we'll be treated fairly
when people disagree with us, it can make it hard to participate in
comfort.

I think considering small changes that improve peoples's confidence in
the fairness of the process could be very valuable in helping listen to
these concerns.

The basic principle Nico seems to be going for here is that you get a
chance to respond before a remedy is imposed.

I agree that providing some mechanism for temporary removal may be
important.  I understand the desire to avoid being overly proscriptive.
However lots of folks have been expressing some unease in this area, and
Nico has outlined a simple and hopefully uncontraversial principle.  I
think codifying that is valuable.