Re: Sam's text and way forward on the last call of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> writes:


>      John Klensin, Brian Carpenter, myself and perhaps Dave
 Crocker have all raised objections that the recall process
 is unlikely to work in cases of harassment.  We've each
 discussed problems with the committee itself both in terms
 of fairness and confidentiality of information provided by
 subject and reporter.

    Spencer>    Right. That's what I think I've seen.  If I'm reading
    Spencer> this part of the conversation accurately, at least some of
    Spencer> those people are objecting that the recall process is
    Spencer> unlikely to work in any case.  If I needed to be recalled,
    Spencer> I'm not sure it matters much why I need to be recalled
    Spencer> (harassment, or some other reason).  If the vast majority
    Spencer> of the community thinks the recall process would work
    Spencer> perfectly if we ever tried to use it running to completion,
    Spencer> all they have to do is say so.  But if that's not the case
    Spencer> ... I would encourage people to think about fixing the
    Spencer> recall process more broadly.  I understand that some of the
    Spencer> mechanics may very well be different for harassment, but I
    Spencer> would encourage people to make the process work in the
    Spencer> general case, and then start making changes to accommodate
    Spencer> the ways that harassment is different.  Maybe it's not
    Spencer> possible to have a process for harassment removals that
    Spencer> looks anything like recalls for other reasons, but I would
    Spencer> encourage the community to special-case as little as
    Spencer> possible here.  Speaking only for myself, of course.  

I'm very sympathetic to that, but I want us to have something that works
in practice now for harassment even if we make changes later and employ
abstraction once we figure out what the abstraction is.

For myself, I'm unconvinced that a recall for harassment reasons should
look at all like a recall for bad job fit.

Here are some reasons I find them different:

* The skill set necessary to fairly handle a harassment claim is very
  different than the skill set necessary to evaluate an I* member's
  performance.

* There are less confidentiality issues surrounding  a recall for bad
  job fit.



In addition, if I were going to reform the recall process, the kind of
reforms I'd generally propose would not help with harassment issues.
The main problem I have is that it's perhaps a bit too difficult too
collect signatures.  So, I'd look at proposals like the one John Klensin
authored a while ago to let sitting I* members sign recall petitions, or
possibly letting our leadership bodies remove one of their members
directly as an additional alternative to the recall process.

Honestly, it's a bit hard for me to evaluate because there's only been
one I* member I was convinced needed to leave their office.  In that
case we did eventually get a recall petition signed.  I've disagreed
with I* members in the past and a couple of times suggested to nomcom
that a change would be for the best, but even then I valued the smoothe
transition of using the normal nomcom process.

I hope we never need to remove someone from I* for harassment.
However,  part of the point of having this harassment policy is to help
people feel safe and secure participating in our standards process.

Knowing that adequate remedies exist is part of that.

I understand that from the respondent's standpoint being able to trust
that you'll be given a fair hearing is also part of the process.
However, were I to be a respondent I'd be more worried about the fair
hearing from the folks who could ban me from the meeting than whether I
got removed from an I* position.  We have to get fairness right for the
exclusions too.