Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-08.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 9/22/2015 12:07 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-crocker-diversity-conduct/),
...
>  I believe
> that, if both documents are to be published, the community would
> be better served by having these documents published together
> and having at least one reference and explanation of the
> different perspectives in one (or both) of them.


There is much that I agree with in John's posting, but this isn't one of
them.

This independent document is independent.  It is a discussion piece by a
couple of IETF participants.

The other document is a product of the IETF and it is intended to become
part of the formal IETF administrative structure.

If it takes work to understand the very considerable importance this
difference means, in terms of role and handling of an independent
document, then please do that work.

One of the less-pleasant bits of education I received throughout the
/seven months/ it has taken to get through the 'Independent' stream
process is that it is far from independent.  There seems to be a common
view that documents on that stream must be meaningfully subservient to
the IETF, rather than actually providing independent input to it.

I won't distract this thread further with details about the multiple
conceptual problems that afflicted the handling of this document, other
than to ask that no one try to impose further restrictions on a document
that really is intended to be /independent/.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net