IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Anti-harassment policy and ombudsperson

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2013 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9519511E80E2; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VRqWG21YdyX; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FC921E805F; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n12so1913711wgh.3 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:40:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IfKFDx9tIo9/SsNk7G4jW9OEa092eHUgq5Et4NUvhQw=; b=U2DX9I0ycjq4HBvezFmjXR4UpsmbbXvmQJtQTuCTSpBgSd52xt8c4GtsKRbCKZD4pM xiq0Zn7T3ElrFTY/TdUSD4ChHReYdrx6VTW7ngUlVfGRn5PtCXjpiDHln3C85KIs7aXn qyvZE1NZPuHo7sej8MK+JDHNn+v0dkd6a1ME6BaP+s6W6kxE8DNx+YvmSKmUstrfTII5 t37TpkBwMQm91e8eGGSfNzirmWzt1mkkYNfxodyKxwu3VT61vniQsH5tqhfiEV6ONhcZ SK2rJm6pVZxEAknAe0HQBLoM/k/mTFnZ/OMm6qGKGzGy4jW54rX9qPuFm41xk7rhtiaF wrKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.174.36 with SMTP id bp4mr13216363wjc.7.1383579642554; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.18.202 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:40:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F97B348A498D4FE818C437CC@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org>
References: <211BE376-9766-4024-9443-304336C6C14D@ietf.org> <5276D467.4090302@dcrocker.net> <F97B348A498D4FE818C437CC@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:40:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZQ=52GCDrxKinN9EDJd2O+bVM9F-PdKhG8TqW_wwAjrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-harassment policy and ombudsperson
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0141a0ae1cef3f04ea5bbd6f"
Cc: Linda Klieforth <klieforth@isoc.org>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 88attendees@thietf.orgsou, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 04 Nov 2013 15:44:44 -0000

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I largely agree with Dave.  I think the motives here are
> entirely appropriate, but the IESG's handing down dicta is
> questionable -- and could be quite problematic if a situation
> appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.
>

I have a related question: Is the IESG the right body to be making these
sorts of declarations in the first place?  It seems to me that an
engineering steering group is a bit outside of its jurisdiction to be
establishing what amount to human resources positions.  The analogy to the
corporate environment, i.e., technical managers and team leads, would
certainly be the wrong body to be taking on the creation of a higher-level
HR function.

Shouldn't this be coming from one of the operational bodies higher up?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email