IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 17 March 2015 14:08 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 CA3B71A1A5F; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:08:47 -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 MsmcP61lknlm; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:08:46 -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 7D1D91A1A60; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2107820666; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:06:01 -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 MyLz9TPCxoqL; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:06:00 -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; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 13B1082838; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]
References: <tslfv9a2t6p.fsf@mit.edu> <36671C44-DE53-4AC9-B8EA-465BF97B2FDB@piuha.net> <tsly4n0zo6g.fsf@mit.edu> <550350C4.9040201@qti.qualcomm.com> <5503914A.7060209@gmail.com> <5503BF22.5020902@gmail.com> <2AE2D092-C32A-46EB-88CA-71366965F4D7@cisco.com> <5505D873.1040203@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbQf_2WUn8PrUXCMy_3w6tt+iJw0tyF=gUojA5fwRXJNg@mail.gmail.com> <550736E0.6080101@dcrocker.net> <20150316203250.GJ2179@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:07:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20150316203250.GJ2179@mx1.yitter.info> (Andrew Sullivan's message of "Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:32:50 -0400")
Message-ID: <tsl3853soo5.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/rHofGZEbxxhcbjMm_3-LxP7Kesw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:24:31 -0700
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion List <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, 17 Mar 2015 14:08:48 -0000

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> writes:

    Andrew> I really dislike this suggestion.  If someone who has no
    Andrew> formal authority and serves at the pleasure of the relevant
    Andrew> WG chairs is abusing their position of influence, the right
    Andrew> thing to do is not to expand the definition of Official
    Andrew> Role-Holder.  The thing to do is to complain to the people
    Andrew> who _do_ have official authority and use the processes we
    Andrew> have.


Having worked with ADs in the past and understanding my own tendencies,
we would tend to second-guess the Ombudsteam.
Unless you want ADs conducting independent investigations after the
Ombudsteam has already done its work, don't ask ADs to make the
decisions about chair removal.

I think making the Ombudsteam interact with chairs for doc editor
removal is highly problematic; it seems very likely that some chairs
will not handle things appropriately.

I agree with Dave Crocker here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email