Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Speaking only for myself:

On 3/13/15 12:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> old:
> (The Ombudsteam can not impose that a Respondent
>        who is in a IETF management position be removed from that
>        position.  There are existing mechanisms within IETF process for
>        the removal of people from IETF management positions that may be
>        used as necessary.)
>
> new:
> The Ombudsteam MAY ask a respondent to consider resigning from an IETF
> management position.  The Ombudsteam May remove a respondent from a
> working group  or document editor position.  While this document does
> not create additional procedures permitting a nomcom appointee be
> removed, the Ombudsteam can exclude a respondent from meetings and
> mailing lists and other activities, making it impossible for them to
> carry out their appointed tasks.
>    

- With regard to NomCom appointed positions, this is just fine, and in 
fact what the current text intended, while making it perfectly clear 
what was intended.

- I am ambivalent about the Ombudsteam being able to remove someone from 
a WG (editor/secretary/chair) position. While it certainly doesn't get 
into the morass that we do with NomCom-appointed positions, it seems to 
me that it's still a bit of "crossing-the-streams", and as far as I can 
tell the same kinds of things that can be done for NomCom-appointed 
positions (ask them to consider resigning their position, exclusion from 
meetings / mailing lists, etc.) would have equal effectiveness. So, I'm 
not sure it's necessary. But as I said, I'm ambivalent.

As for the thought experiment on how a recall might go after such an 
incident: I am certainly more sanguine than Sam. Presuming an incident 
where the Ombudsteam decides that an AD can no longer participate in 
meetings and mailing lists (already I would hope a *highly* unusual 
circumstance) *and* the AD goes haywire and refuses to relinquish their 
title (even more unlikely) *and* the "two sides" try to get their 
friends on the recall committee, *and* these supposed friends agree to 
participate in such a thing (I have a hard time imagining any of the 
people I know in the IETF being willing to do so), we still have the 
case that the (hopefully sane) ISOC-President-appointed recall committee 
chair is going to tell the committee, "Look, we are not deciding whether 
this person can start participating in meetings or on mailing lists 
again. They can't and that's not going to change. The only question is 
whether they get to keep their office in light of that fact." If at that 
(almost unimaginable) point a sufficient number of people on the recall 
committee are willing to be so destructive to the IETF that they are 
willing to participate in leaving the person in the position, I think 
I'm willing to live with the IETF going *boom*.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]