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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 05:46:11 PM John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, March 20, 2015 13:23 -0500 Jari Arkko
> 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I agree with the points from Scott, Christian, and you John
> > that it is possible that confidentiality is not maintained on
> > a case involving a continuously bad actor. (Assuming we get to
> > such a bad situation to begin with, which I hope we wont.)
> > 
> > My question to you though is what effect do you believe that
> > observation should have on our procedures? Are you suggesting
> > that they should not by default be confidential?
> 
> I think the draft outlines a process that should, in the hands
> of the right people with the right professional skills (see
> Mike's comments) work rather well for careless or insensitive
> offenders who do things in the IETF that, on reflection, they
> can be persuaded they should not be doing.  I thing a
> confidential process is completely consistent with that.
> 
> If that fails, I think, first, that the neutral "respondent" is
> no longer appropriate and we should be using terms like
> "offender".    Whether "offender" gets qualified with terms like
> "persistent", "obstinate about the correctness of his or her
> behavior", "unrepentant" or other words may or may not be
> relevant depending on the particular issues (and, by the way,
> those applicable/local laws). Because of that I think we get
> into a process, whether it involves the Ombudsteam, Recall, Post
> Rights actions, and/or something else, that involves either
> preventing another repetition whether the offender agrees or not
> or protecting the community from the effects and consequences of
> the offender's behavior, typically both.
> 
> To a considerable extent, I believe that once that line is
> crossed, the presumption must be that the harassment is
> interfering with the IETF getting work done and we are all
> victims.
> 
> At that point, I think the most important role of the Ombudsteam
> (one that, by the way, requires an even higher level of
> professionalism than the "normal" case) is to work with
> Reporter-victims, and, when appropriate, with the IESG and
> potentially Counsel on behalf of community-victims to determine
> whether the advantages of taking further steps --steps in which
> confidentiality is ultimately not going to be possible and may
> be less desirable-- to the community and individual victims
> exceed the disadvantages of, e.g., risking disclosure of victim
> identities, community gossip. etc.   I think we need to accept
> something that others have said in different ways: when we start
> doing things like blocking someone's ability to participate, it
> better be done via and open process with the guarantees that
> only openness at critical stages can bring.

This description presumes false or incorrect reports don't happen.  Just 
because the respondent doesn't fall all over themselves to recant, doesn't 
mean they've done anything wrong.

Scott K