Re: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 16 February 2015 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 9DFE61A0470; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 K_ceCcSrmAhJ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB691A1B36; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.20.140] ([216.127.117.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1GJNTgV021156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:32 -0800
Message-ID: <54E243AE.9040408@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:26 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "'IETF discussion list'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment
References: <CADhXe52X+-1yjNUPWGCmbRhgHguMPTC+X6DTYsN=CMY46-sGhw@mail.gmail.com> <000601d04a1c$60ee3cf0$22cab6d0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <000601d04a1c$60ee3cf0$22cab6d0$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wO5tnN0y9dC_h9__EL2xT8bUykg>
Cc: draft-farrresnickel-harassment@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 16 Feb 2015 19:23:34 -0000

Since there is some activity concerning the draft...


The draft should add guidance -- and possibly requirement -- for an
active, ongoing process of oversight, that seeks to assess and improve
harassment-related mechanisms in the IETF.


In particular:

   0)  Do we have a basis for knowing that IETF participants are aware
of harassment-related remedies that are available?

   1)  Do we have a basis for believing that these remedies are
perceived as real and useful?

   2)  If someone is harassed, how do we know they received helpful
assistance?  (In other words, do we have a basis for 'knowing' that the
remedies are real and useful?_

   3)  Do we have a way of assessing whether patterns of harassment show
improvement (less harassment)?


Simply put:  We need to run this as a closed-loop, on-going,
incrementally-improving system.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net