Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/7/22 15:37, Joel Halpern wrote:

> And, as occurred in this case, they should be talked to about whether 
> they understand the problem and are willing to change their behavior.  
> If not, and if they demonstrate they are unwilling to modify their 
> behavior, then we as a community are obliged to take explicit steps to 
> prevent the bad behavior. 

While I certainly support the idea of privately consulting with an 
individual who is accused of inappropriate behavior before taking 
action, there are some problems with that, or maybe holes in the 
process.   One is a lack of transparency.   IESG may claim that they've 
done so, but we don't know what was said, how clearly it was said, what 
threats were made, or whether there was any truth or validity at all to 
whatever accusations were made at the time.   We have no reason to 
accept IESG's claim as valid on its face, nor should we assume that they 
provided any real support for their claims of inappropriate behavior, as 
indeed, they have not done in this Last Call (IMO).

I don't claim that this is an easy problem to solve, because part of the 
point of such conversations is to try to resolve the perceived issue 
without exposing the accused to unnecessary embarrassment if the problem 
can be easily resolved.   In the case of some simple misunderstanding 
that can be cleared up, why air any of the dirty laundry?   But the 
overall progression from "hey, could we talk to you about something?" to 
"ok, we're going to formally invoke process to revoke your posting 
rights", and the appropriate kind of communication and transparency of 
each step, seem unclear.

Keith