Subject: anti-harassment procedures

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:56:38 +0100

The IESG Statement concerning an Anti-Harassment Policy (http://www.ietf.org//iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html) gave the general outline of the kinds of behaviors that were not acceptable, and stated that we would have an ombudsperson to handle complaints. The specific procedures were left open. 

I asked Pete Resnick and Adrian Farrel to draft a procedures document, with the intent that it eventually could become a BCP. They have got something now that I think has enough structure for the wider community to discuss. Thank you, Pete and Adrian! Nevertheless, this is just a drafty "pre-00" proposal, with the specifics still open for discussion, but it seems to me the right general direction. I'm sending it here on this e-mail, and it will be posted as a draft when the submissions open again.

A couple of points before people start discussing it:

- The IESG has seen this, but by no means has agreement on the points. They have only agreed that it is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

- This is obviously not a technical specification. There will be a lot of variables for each situation and we will have rely on the good training and judgment of the Ombudsperson to handle things on a case-by-case basis. Trying to over-specify everything is unlikely to be useful.

- This can be a sensitive topic and a difficult discussion to have on an open list like the IETF list. Please try to keep that in mind as you make or respond to comments. If you would prefer to send your comments instead to the IESG, or directly to me, that is fine. In the end, I'll summarize those comments for the list and make sure they get addressed, just like other comments made to the list.

I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very few situations where these procedures are needed, but they are needed. I thank you for your help and respectful input into this difficult but important discussion.

Jari

                    IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
                   draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00

Abstract

   IETF participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF
   meetings, virtual meetings, social events, or on mailing lists.  This
   document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.

   This initial version is provided as a starting point for discussion
   and does not represent the firm opinions of the authors.
   Furthermore, the ideas presented in this document have not been fully
   discussed and reviewed by the IESG.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Ombudsperson  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Appointing the Ombudsperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Qualifications and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Term of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Recompense  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.  Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.  Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson .   5
   4.  Handling Reports of Harassment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Remedies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Disputes with the Ombudsperson  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   0
     8.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has general policies for managing disruptive behavior in the
   context of IETF activities.  In particular, [RFC3184] provides a set
   of guidelines for personal interaction in the IETF, and [RFC2418] and
   [RFC3934] give guidelines for how to deal with disruptive behavior
   that occurs in the context of IETF working group face-to-face
   meetings and on mailing lists.

   However, there is other problematic, often more interpersonal,
   behavior that can occur in the context of IETF activities (meetings,
   mailing list discussions, or social events) that does not directly
   disrupt working group progress, but nonetheless is unacceptable
   behavior between IETF participants.  This sort of behavior, described
   in the IESG Statement on an "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy" [1], is not
   easily dealt with by our normal working group guidelines and
   procedures.  Therefore, this document sets forth procedures to deal
   with such harassing behavior.  These procedures are intended to be
   used when other IETF policies and procedures do not apply or have
   been ineffective.

   Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due
   process of law for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which
   any harassment takes place.

2.  Definitions

   The following terms are used in this document:

      Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to
      the Ombudsperson.

      Respondent: An IETF participant who is claimed to have engaged in
      harassing behavior.

      Ombudsperson: The person who is selected to take reports of
      harassment, evaluate them, and impose appropriate actions and/or
      remedies to address the circumstance.  This word is used in the
      singular throughout this document although multiple ombudspersons
      might serve at any one time.

      Target: An individual IETF participant to whom the potentially
      harassing behavior was directed.

   This document does not attempt to precisely define behavior that
   falls under the set of procedures identified here.  In general,
   disruptive behavior that occurs in the context of an IETF general or
   working group mailing list, or happens in a face-to-face or virtual
   meeting of a working group or the IETF plenary, can be dealt with by
   our normal procedures, whereas harassing behavior that is
   interpersonal is more easily handled by the procedures described
   here.  However, there are certainly plausible reasons to address
   behaviors that take place during working-group meetings using these
   procedures.  This document gives some guidance to those involved in
   these situations in order to decide how to handle particular
   incidents, but in the end the final decision will involve judgment
   and the guidance of the Ombudsperson.

3.  The Ombudsperson

   This section describes the role of the Ombudsperson in terms of their
   appointment, qualifications and training, the length of the term of
   service, any recompense for their service, and how they may be
   removed from service.  The general operational procedures for the
   Ombudsperson are described in Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6.

3.1.  Appointing the Ombudsperson

   The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair.  The appointment is
   solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair although the Chair may
   choose to consult with the IESG, the IAB, and with ISOC.
   Furthermore, the IETF Chair may take opinion from the community.

   The IETF Chair may choose to solicit nominations or advertise the
   post.  This is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair.

   The IETF Chair is also free to decide how many people are needed to
   fill the role of Ombudsperson.  This may depend on the skillsets
   available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated
   Ombudsperson.  Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of
   diversity in making this decision.

3.2.  Qualifications and Training

   It is not expected that there will be candidates with all of the
   necessary ombudsperson skills and training who also have a clear
   understanding and familiarity with the IETF processes and culture.
   The Chair might choose someone with a great deal of professional
   experience evaluating and mediating harassment disputes, but little
   exposure to the IETF, or could select someone with more exposure to
   the IETF community, but without as much experience dealing with
   issues of harassment.  Since all of these attributes may be regarded
   by the IETF Chair as essential for an appointment, the IETF is
   committed to provide funding for necessary training for an appointed
   Ombudsperson.

3.3.  Term of Service

   An Ombudsperson shall be appointed for a two year term.  That is, the
   Ombudsperson is making a commitment to serve for two years.  It is
   understood, however, that circumstances may lead an Ombudsperson to
   resign for personal or other reasons.  See also Section 3.5.

   It is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair whether a serving
   Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.

3.4.  Recompense

   An Ombudsperson shall receive no recompense for their services.  This
   includes, but is not limited to:

      IETF meeting fees

      Remuneration for time spent

      Out-of-pocket expenses (such as telephone charges)

      Travel or accommodation expenses

   The IETF will, however, meet the costs of training when agreed to by
   the IETF Chair as described in Section 3.2.

3.5.  Removal

   The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
   their term without explanation to the community.  Such an action
   shall not be appealable.  See also Section 6.

3.6.  Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson

   If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IETF
   Chair regarding the appointment, removal, or management of the
   Ombudsperson, that person should first discuss the issue with the
   IESG Chair directly.  If the IESG Chair is unable to resolve the
   issue, the dissatisfied party may appeal to the IESG as a whole.  The
   IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
   manner of its own choosing.  The procedures of Section 6.5.4 of
   [RFC2026] apply to this sort of appeal.

4.  Handling Reports of Harassment

   Any IETF participant who believes that they or other IETF
   participants have been harassed or may have been harassed may bring
   the concern to the attention of the Ombudsperson.  This can be done
   by email to "[email-masked]" [2], or can be done directly to
   the Ombudsperson.  Direct contact information for the Ombudsperson,
   including the email addresses to which "[email-masked]" is
   forwarded, can be found at https://www.ietf.org/ombudsperson .

   The Ombudsperson is expected to be present at the majority of IETF
   meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions.

   All information brought to the Ombudsperson shall be kept in strict
   confidence.  Any electronic information (such as email messages) that
   needs to be archived shall be encrypted before it is stored.

   When a Reporter brings an incident of potential harassment to the
   Ombudsperson's attention to, the Ombudsperson will discuss the events
   with the Reporter and may give advice including recommendations on
   how the Reporter can handle the issue on their own and strategies on
   how to prevent the issue from arising again.  The Ombudsperson may
   also indicate that the issue would be best handled using regular IETF
   procedures (such as those for dealing with disruptive behavior)
   outside the context of harassment, and in this case the Ombudsperson
   will provide assistance in using the relevant IETF procedures.  In
   any event, the Ombudsperson will not initiate detailed investigations
   or impose a remedy without agreement to proceed from the Target (or
   the Reporter if there is no individual Target).

   When conducting a detailed investigation of the circumstances
   regarding the complaint of harassment, the Ombudsperson may contact
   the Respondent and request a meeting in person or by a voice call.
   The Respondent is not obliged to cooperate, but the Ombudsperson may
   consider failure to cooperate when determining a remedy (Section 5).

   In all cases the Ombudsperson will strive to maintain confidentiality
   for all parties including the very fact of contact with the
   Ombudsperson.

5.  Remedies

   After examining the circumstances regarding the complaint of
   harassment and determining that harassment has taken place, the
   Ombudsperson is expected to choose a remedy that is appropriate to
   the circumstance.  At one end of the spectrum, the Ombudsperson may
   decide that the misbehavior is best handled with the regular IETF
   procedures for dealing with disruptive behavior and may assist the
   Reporter to bring the issue to the attention of the working group
   chair or IESG member who can deal with the incident.  The
   Ombudsperson might also choose simply to discuss the situation with
   the Respondent and come up with a plan such that there is no repeat
   of the harassment.  With the agreement of both parties, the
   Ombudsperson can also help to mediate a conversation between the
   Respondent and the Target (or the Reporter if there is no individual
   Target) in order to address the issue.  Finally, on the other end of
   the spectrum, the Ombudsperson could decide that the Respondent is no
   longer permitted to participate in a particular IETF activity,
   whether it is a mailing list discussion, virtual meeting, or a face-
   to-face activity, up to and including requiring that the Respondent
   can no longer attend a face-to-face IETF meeting and its associated
   activities, either for the remainder of the present meeting or (in
   the extreme) future meetings.

   In determining the appropriate remedy, the Ombudsperson may
   communicate with the Reporter, Target, and Respondent in order to
   assess the impact that the imposition of a remedy might have on any
   of those parties.  However, the Ombudsperson has ultimate
   responsibility for the choice of remedy.

   In all cases, the Ombudsperson informs the Respondent of the decision
   and imposes the remedy as appropriate.  In cases where the remedy is
   removal from IETF activities, the Ombudsperson will confidentially
   notify the Secretariat of the remedy such that the Secretariat can
   take whatever logistical actions are required to effect the remedy.
   Only the remedy itself shall be disclosed to the Secretariat, not any
   information regarding the nature of the harassment.

6.  Disputes with the Ombudsperson

   If either the Target (or the Reporter if there is no individual
   Target) or the Respondent is dissatisfied with the decision of the
   Ombudsperson, the dissatisfied party should first contact the
   Ombudsperson and discuss the situation.  If the issue cannot be
   resolved through discussion with the Ombudsperson, the issue may be
   raised with the IETF Chair.

   If necessary, the IETF Chair may recuse themself from any part of
   this process and delegate to another member of the IESG.

   The IETF Chair will attempt to resolve the issue in discussion with
   the dissatisfied party and the Ombudsperson.  If this further
   discussion does not bring a satisfactory resolution, the
   Ombudsperson's decision may be formally appealed.  The appeal is
   strictly on the issue of whether the Ombudsperson exercised due
   diligence in both their decision as to whether harassment had taken
   place, as well as in their determination of any appropriate remedy
   that was imposed.  In particular, the purpose of the appeal is not to
   re-investigate the circumstances of the incident.

   All elements of the appeal, including the fact of the appeal, will be
   held in confidence, but will be recorded and held securely for future
   reference.

   The appeal will be evaluated by the IETF Chair and two other members
   of the IESG, selected by the IETF Chair and confirmed by the
   appellant.  This Appeals Group shall convene as quickly as possible
   to evaluate and decide the appeal.  Where the impacts are immediate
   and related to participation in an ongoing meeting, this shall happen
   in no more than 24 hours after receiving the appeal.  The Appeals
   Group may ask the appellant and the Ombudsperson for statements or
   other information to consider.  If the Appeals Group concludes that
   due diligence was exercised by the Ombudsperson, this shall be
   reported to the appellant and the matter is concluded.  If they find
   that due diligence was not exercised, the Appeals Group shall report
   this to the Ombudsperson, and consult with the Ombudsperson on how to
   complete the due diligence.

   Because of the need to keep the information regarding these matters
   as confidential as possible, the Appeals Group's decision is final
   with respect to the question of whether the Ombudsperson has used due
   diligence in their decision.  The only further recourse available is
   to claim that the procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures
   described in this document) are inadequate or insufficient to the
   protection of the rights of all parties.  Such appeals may be made to
   the Internet Society Board of Trustees, as described in Section 6.5.3
   of [RFC2026].  Again, even in this circumstance, the particulars of
   the incident at hand will be held in confidence.

      Note: The authors of this draft chose to use the IETF Chair and
      two IESG members as the Appeals Group.  Though not completely
      arbitrary, there are certainly other plausible choices.  The
      authors also recognize that this is a different sort of appeals
      procedure than normal.  However, the normal appeals procedure
      contemplates an openness about the process that the
      confidentiality issues in these cases simply do not allow.

7.  Security Considerations

   "Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they may
   be able to realize their full potential." -- Aung San Suu Kyi

8.  References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [RFC3184]  Harris, S., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54, RFC
              3184, October 2001.

   [RFC3934]  Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
              Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
              October 2004.

8.2.  URIs

   [1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-
       policy.html

   [2] mailto:[email-masked]

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

Authors' Addresses

   Pete Resnick
   Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
   5775 Morehouse Drive
   San Diego, CA  92121
   US

   Phone: +1 858 6511 4478
   Email: [email-masked]

   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper Networks

   Email: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:22:32 +0000

An annoying trend:

should have been farrel-resnick

             Opportunistic Encryption in MPLS Networks
          draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-00.txt

should have been farrel-farell

When trying to locate drafts by author name, or pick up on primary authors for indexing, or indicate drafts from memory, this cutesiness really doesn't help. Cut it out, Adrian.

If you don't actually want your name on a draft (and the need for anonymous draft submission seems as if it could be useful?) 'Smithee,' as used by film directors, seems a reasonable thing to adopt.

Alan Smithee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:31:24 -0000

Oh, whatever, Lloyd.

I use the datatracker to search for documents by author. A nice tool generally
available without subscription.

I also format document names roughly according to recommendations so that there
is only one nametag in the file name.

If this is the most significant thing I do wrong this year, I shall revel in it.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 20 February 2014 21:23
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: draft naming was RE: anti-harassment procedures
> 
> An annoying trend:
> 
> When trying to locate drafts by author name, or pick up on primary authors for
> indexing, or indicate drafts from memory, this cutesiness really doesn't help.
Cut
> it out, Adrian.
> 
> If you don't actually want your name on a draft (and the need for anonymous
> draft submission seems as if it could be useful?) 'Smithee,' as used by film
> directors, seems a reasonable thing to adopt.
> 
> Alan Smithee
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee=

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:15:39 -0500

--On Thursday, February 20, 2014 21:22 +0000 [email-masked]
wrote:

>...
> When trying to locate drafts by author name, or pick up on
> primary authors for indexing, or indicate drafts from memory,
> this cutesiness really doesn't help.

Actually, if we were following the historical and IMO very
useful rules, it would be either "draft-farrel-harassment..." or
"draft-resnick-harassment...".   The difficulty with adding
multiple author names becomes obvious as soon as there are three
or four authors.

I've often wished that the submission tool would check a table
for a small number of organizational tags (ietf, iab, etc.) and,
if the first string after "draft-" didn't appear there, check it
against the first author name.  It would be fairly easy to
verify that "draft-ietf-" was followed immediately by a
short-form WG name too.  If documents that didn't satisfy those
criteria went to manual posting and required an explanation to
the secretariat, I think the cutesiness would mostly stop in a
hurry.  If would also stop "draft-<made-up-organization>-..."
which, IMO, would be a real service to the community.

    john

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:51:42 +0100

The draft has missing parts, because 1) the levels of harassing was not
defined, 2 ) it may also ignore the real practical society problems that
make harassing occur, 3) it gives a lot of power to IETF chair without
conditions or limits (may be the reason is to make it simple).  The draft
may assume that all ADs can not be part of harassing (not sure, draft is
unclear on this assumption). It should consider to be fair to all, and to
prevent sources of harassing not only solving when occurs. The below
comments are also initial comments.

2.  Definitions
>       Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to

Please amend to PH Reporter (Potential Harassment).

>       Respondent: An IETF participant who is claimed to have engaged in

This should explain his/her respond and to whom he/she responding to.

>       harassing behavior was directed.

Why only individual? Why not group of people or race or gender. The target
can be more than one,

Please amend; a group or an individual participant.

>    falls under the set of procedures identified here.

That is good but IMHO still we need its limits defined.

However, you are missing another part of behaviour damage on the IETF
general behaviour.  So we need to define another target, which may be
named; possible future target.

Usually most harassing has two victims or target one is the main and the
other is not intended but affected, because it may become a possible future
target. Wise people avoid groups that has not reported harassing.

In general,
>    The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair.

I think should be appointed by IESG, not the IETF chair, because any
IETF AD is also an individual participant that may possibly be target or
respondent.

> The appointment is
>    solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair

Responsible to the IESG not to the chair.

> although the Chair may

There should be diversity, so if a harassing is related to a race then the
ombudsperson should not be in same race.

>    Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.

IMHO the Chair reports to IESG for approval.

>    their term without explanation to the community.

But it should be explained to IESG.

> Such an action

There should be conditions for these both roles. Is there a condition that
that chair was not a reporter or a respondent or a target for PH? I think
there should be, because if he/she is part of the harassing issue then
he/she should not be the one to decide or as you mention below unable to
resolve. Also if the IESG has some targets as well what is the procedure?

>    IESG Chair directly.

I thought that the IETF chair is the IESG chair? But in here they seem
different person.

> If the IESG Chair is unable to resolve the
>    manner of its own choosing.

There should be clear conditions that any member of that IESG should not be
target or reporter or respondent. Otherwise they should not be able to
choose.

> The procedures of Section 6.5.4 of
>    of the harassment.

It is a weak remedy, or it is a plan.
The respondent SHOULD apologies and declare mistaken.

> With the agreement of both parties, the
>    Target) in order to address the issue.

Ok.

> Finally, on the other end of

Disagree, you did not define the limit or level of harassing or even
avoiding to define such behavior, that makes that decision unfair to
the respondent being band from the future of IETF activities (6 months can
be enough, because you don't define the limits).

AB

>    of those parties.  However, the Ombudsperson has u

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:04:24 +1300

On 21/02/2014 12:15, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> against the first author name.  

Why only the first author? I don't think that restriction is called
for.

> It would be fairly easy to
> short-form WG name too.  

I believe that is already checked, since draft-ietf-*-00 drafts have to
be approved by a WG Chair, and that case is detected automatically.

   Brian

> If documents that didn't satisfy those

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:59:31 +0100

As long as (1) we have tools to map authors to documents for search and aggregation purposes anyway, (2) we maintain the reserved structure of draft-ietf-wg-* and other special second elements, I don't see any reason to further restrict the second element of the draft name.

This came in handy recently in IPPM, where we had multiple proposals for a performance metrics registry that started pretty widely separated from each other. It would have been arbitrary and inaccurate simply to choose an author name for each the (individual draft) stages of the convergence; the resulting draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry-00 is IMO accurately named. 

A policy strictly restricting element 2 to author names would have required us to waste energy on a "what do we want to name the band" discussion.

Regards,

Brian

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:25:05 +0100

Folks,

As wg chair I'm not interested in draft with file-names like
draft-farel-farell-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt, the draft will not show
up on the mpls wg webpage, and I will have to hunt drafts all over the
place. draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt is much better.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:36:39 +0100

Hi

On Thu 20/Feb/2014 21:56:38 +0100 Jari Arkko wrote: 
> 
> I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very few
> situations where these procedures are needed, but they are needed.
> I thank you for your help and respectful input into this difficult
> but important discussion.

>       Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to

You mean "harassment or potential harassment", don't you?

I suggest a fifth definition, grouping the persons --Target(s) or
Reporter(s)-- who started or were involved in a case.  For example:

   Harassed Subject:  The Target or the Reporter if there is no
   individual Target.

>    meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions.

In that case, it might be practical to consider Ombudsperson deputies,
nominated by the Ombudsperson directly, possibly for a single
meeting/event only.

>    confidence.

Yes, unless the Harassed Subjects agree to publish it.  I see no
reason to make it necessarily confidential in every case.  In some
cases, public disapprobation can save the day (see below).

>    Any electronic information (such as email messages) that

Since this is not a technical memo, it could suffice to say that the
Ombudsperson will use adequate precautions when transmitting or
archiving confidential information.

>    the Reporter if there is no individual Target).

This is yet another place where the fifth definition comes handy.

>    Target) in order to address the issue.

In such circumstances, the Ombudsperson can devise a punishment or
penitence to be inflicted to the Respondent.  Anything like a slap on
the wrist or having the Respondent stand naked on the stage and
publicly apologize for his/her misconduct will do, so long as the
Harassed Subjects agree that it is appropriate.  Of course, the
Ombudsperson has no legal power to enforce a punishment, but the
Respondent's willingness to receive it voluntarily is to be considered
when making further decisions on the case.

jm2c
Ale

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:56:44 -0500

--On Friday, February 21, 2014 08:59 +0100 Brian Trammell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As long as (1) we have tools to map authors to documents for
> search and aggregation purposes anyway, (2) we maintain the
> reserved structure of draft-ietf-wg-* and other special second
> elements, I don't see any reason to further restrict the
> second element of the draft name.
> 
> This came in handy recently in IPPM, where we had multiple
> proposals for a performance metrics registry that started
> pretty widely separated from each other. It would have been
> arbitrary and inaccurate simply to choose an author name for
> each the (individual draft) stages of the convergence; the
> resulting draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry-00 is IMO
> accurately named. 
> 
> A policy strictly restricting element 2 to author names would
> have required us to waste energy on a "what do we want to name
> the band" discussion.

Brian,

I think this discussion will reach the point of diminishing
returns rather quickly, but I note that:

 - IPPM, or any other WG, has very little control over what an
I-D is called until it is accepted as a draft.  Until then, it
is formally an individual piece of work.  So "what do we want to
name the band" ought to be off-topic unless you want to provide
guidance as to what the draft will be called if the WG adopts
it... and then you get to mess only with what will come after 
  draft-ietf-WGNAME-

- No matter how many authors, collaborations, etc.., are
involved in a particular draft, someone has to push the "submit"
button (or send mail to the Secretariat) on the -00 version.
That individual is a pretty good approximation to "first author"
whether he or she is listed first in the header or not.   Note
that, that person is not listed in the headers and "author
addresses" section as an author, the document is headed for
manual submission anyway.

- The problem with "draft-manyfolks-" is that it is likely to
have an entirely different meaning in some other WG in some
other area than it does in IPPM than it does in IPPM.   Contrast
that with, e.g., some longstanding semi-organizations whose
membership is either constant or fairly well-defined (even if
nominally anonymous) such as draft-ymbk-...  Compared with
"draft-manyfolks-... draft-ABCDEF-..., where "ABCDEF" are the
first letters of the names of the major contributors, or
something similar.   Even if that is unique, I don't think that
(or draft-manyfolks-...) are helpful because, outside the WG,
they communicate no more useful information than
draft-anonymous-..., YMMD.  Of course, you could see if the
powers that be would be happy with "draft-IPPM-manyfolks..."
but, if you have gotten that far, why not just make it a WG
draft and be done with it?

best,
   john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:26:25 -0500

> A policy strictly restricting element 2 to author names would have required us to waste energy on a "what do we want to name the band" discussion.

Agree.   We have too many piddly rules that serve little or no purpose 
already.    As long as neither the identifier nor the listed authors in 
the document are misleading, I don't see the need to impose further 
restrictions on them.

Keith

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:51:31 +0000

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]>wrote:

> already.    As long as neither the identifier nor the listed authors in the
> document are misleading, I don't see the need to impose further
> restrictions on them.

I feel very strongly, and furthermore I think it's perfectly self evident -
the form of a draft name, and the number of authors, and - most especially
- the way in which these authors are listed is of vital importance, and
there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I have something to say about
it. It's key to note, as a matter of principle.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:57:40 -0500

On 02/21/2014 04:51 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Keith Moore 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Agree. We have too many piddly rules that serve little or no
>     purpose already.    As long as neither the identifier nor the
>     listed authors in the document are misleading, I don't see the
>     need to impose further restrictions on them.
>
>
> I feel very strongly, and furthermore I think it's perfectly self 
> evident - the form of a draft name, and the number of authors, and - 
> most especially - the way in which these authors are listed is of 
> vital importance, and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I 
> have something to say about it. It's key to note, as a matter of 
> principle.
Silly me, I think the draft should be evaluated based on its content, 
rather than on who claims to have written it.

Keith

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:19:33 -0800

Jari Arkko wrote:
> I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very
> few situations where these procedures are needed, but they are
> needed. I thank you for your help and respectful input into this
> difficult but important discussion.

I want to thank the authors, and the Chair, for doing the work to define 
a harassment policy. Even if it is never used, the fact that it exists 
demonstrates a commitment to dealing with harassment complaints in a 
prompt and fair fashion, and that has a positive effect.

>     falls under the set of procedures identified here.  In general,

In my view, a successful harassment policy needs to do two things:
1) Clearly establish what is unacceptable behavior.
2) Clearly indicate whom to go to for help.

Section 4 satisfies (2) adequately. This statement, however, indicates 
that you are punting on (1). Earlier, the draft references 
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>, 
which uses much more definitive language on what constitutes harassment. 
I would hope we could get IETF consensus on language of that nature, 
defining what is clearly unacceptable, even if we wish to make 
allowances for culture and leave some room for gray areas and borderline 
cases.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:41:16 -0500

On 02/21/2014 08:19 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> which uses much more definitive language on what constitutes 
> harassment. I would hope we could get IETF consensus on language of 
> that nature, defining what is clearly unacceptable, even if we wish to 
> make allowances for culture and leave some room for gray areas and 
> borderline cases.
While I understand the desire to do (1), in my experience with 
discussing harassment policies in other organizations it has been a 
rathole, or at least a slippery slope.   While it's not too hard to 
identify a few obviously harassing or abusive behaviors, it can be very 
hard to draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors 
in general.   Simple policies seem to work much better than complicated 
ones.

Keith

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Feb 2014 04:03:22 -0000

The process looks fine, if a bit overspecified.  I have some concern
about the choice of ombudsman*, given the extremely poor experience I
had with ICANN's ombudsman a few years back, although the lack of pay
will certainly discourage careerism.

My larger concern is that you need at least some general descriptions
of what would constitute harassment to keep it from being too
arbitrary.  It seems to me that the essence of harassment is unwanted
attention directed to an individual or small group of individuals.  If
the target told the harasser to stop and he continued, that makes the
claim more credible, although there are surely situations where the
situation is threatening enough that it's reasonable not to respond at
the time.

A few general guidelines like that would make the policy a lot more
concrete, and avoid "how could I know X would take that as
harassment?" issues.

R's,
John

* - ombudsperson is unacceptably species-ist, while ombudsman is a
Swedish legal term from the 1950s

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:40:20 +1300

On 22/02/2014 17:03, John Levine wrote:
> arbitrary. 

Yes, I'm afraid that deferring that to an IESG statement isn't
satisfactory; I would assume that at some point the IESG would
update its statement to point to this document, rather than
the other way round. Having the definition split between two
places is the surely the worst solution.

> It seems to me that the essence of harassment is unwanted
> attention directed to an individual or small group of individuals.

One difficulty is that what is "unwanted" is very sensitive
to cultural and linguistic subtleties. Also, if (for example) I
were to repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's
IETF work, or even syntax errors in their English, where is the
line between legitimate discussion and review and objectionable
harassment?

I don't think that saying the behaviour is "unwanted" by the
target is sufficient. It needs to be clearly directed at the person
and not at the work, and it needs to be "hostile or intimidating"
as well as unwelcome (as in the IESG statement). But even so,
there's always going to be judgment involved. As long as we have
checks and balances as proposed, I don't see a better approach than
an ombudsman (or something very similar).

http://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/about-the-role-of-an-ombudsman.php

   Brian

> If

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:21:44 -0800

Keith Moore wrote:
> [snip]

I agree completely. That is why I suggested we do the former and not the 
latter.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:12:59 -0800

Kudos to Adrian and Pete for working on this and producing a thoughtful 
proposal.

I'm separating my comments, and will limit this initial posting to a few 
basic issues.  I'll post pickier quibbles later...

Summary:

      Although reasonable by many measures, the proposal needs more 
complete specification of the standing Ombud function.  It also needs a 
different appeals body.

Background:

      I believe the primary goal, in the IETF's having and processing 
harassment complaints, is to ensure that the IETF is legitimately 
inviting to the widest possible range of participants, and hence to 
encourage their active participation.

      Groups with more diversity produce better work.  Groups that 
suffer harassment of participants inherently reduce real diversity.

      In spite of the IETF's long history of open participation, the 
fact is that daily IETF life often includes explicit and implicit 
tolerance of various forms of harassment.

      The new anti-harassment policy sets quite a good foundation for 
changing this.

However as challenging as it is to produce a policy statement, it is far 
easier than figuring out how to produce a practical implementation of 
the policy...

The Details:

This topic is quite foreign to the experience, skill set and even 
perspective of most IETF participants, touching delicate and painful 
legal and personnel management issues.  Anyone put in a position of 
handling a harassment report needs training, coupled with expert advice. 
  Raw intelligence and good intentions are not enough.

(On the other hand, the principal actors in a harassment complaint are 
not employees of the IETF.  So there might be some additional degrees of 
freedom in the way that IETF-related complaints are handled, compared 
with what a regular company has to do.)

0. Defining Harassment

I think the IESG Statement provides extended text defining and 
describing harassment that is quite reasonable, in tone and scope.  The 
text should be incorporated into an IETF-approved document, which is 
what I'm hoping Adrian and Pete's draft becomes.

1. Ombud Formation

I believe the most critical bit of core work for handling a report of 
harassment is to already have a well-defined and stable Ombud function, 
with good community understanding of the function and approval for it. 
The proposal defers the substance of this issue to the IETF Chair. 
While the Chair is probably the right function for overseeing formation 
of the Ombud, the framework for the office should not be left to the 
vagaries of whoever happens to be Chair and whatever they happen to 
think right at one moment or another.

So the Ombud function needs to be formally defined and according to 
community approval, not merely community review.  Hence the requirements 
and details for the function need separate and stable specification, 
with community support around it.  Then the IETF Chair can reasonably be 
asked to implement it.

It is tempting to suggest assigning the Ombud function to a senior human 
resources professional.

However they will not have the experience with the IETF culture and are, 
instead, likely to apply a classic corporate model for responding to 
harassment complaints, which sometimes includes worrying more about 
protecting the company than about ensuring appropriate handling of 
actual abuse.

So it is better to rest the responsibility for Ombud work on the 
shoulders of experienced IETF volunteers.

2. Appeal

It's reasonable to consider the IESG or IAB as an appeals review board, 
since they already have some IETF appeals responsibilities.  However 
harassment reports call on completely different expertise and completely 
different dynamics.  They also require far greater confidentiality and 
sensitivity than is reasonable to demand from the IESG or IAB.

So, here's a modified proposal...

1. Setup

      a. Formulate a standing Complaints Committee -- called the Ombud 
-- of 3 IETF volunteers.  This is small enough to make efficient and 
coherent workings workings more likely, along with maintain a reasonable 
degree of confidentiality.

      b. Give them the relevant professional manager's training in 
handling harassment complaints.

      c. Recruit a professional HR harassment adviser and a 
harassment-savvy attorney, to act as advisers.

2. Processing:

      a.  On receiving a report, the committee works with the Reporter, 
Target and Respondent to formulate a sanitized summary of the complaint 
and 'defense'.  This will be used if there is an appeal.  It also will 
serve to get the involved parties to focus on the essential details. The 
wordsmithing goal of the sanitization is to produce a version that can 
be shown outside of this initial group.  Possibly only an appeals 
committee but possibly even public.

      b.  The Ombud works with the principals to assess the claimed 
offense and formulate responses they deem appropriate.

      c.  The Ombud modifies the sanitized writeup to include a 
sanitized summary of the decision.

      d.  If any of the principals wishes, they can appeal the Ombud's 
decision. Appeal is to the ISOC Board of Trustees.

3. Appeals:

      For a topic like this, I think one level of appeal is sufficient 
and that the sensitive personnel and legal aspects of this topic warrant 
restricting who is involved, including choosing a venue that already has 
legal strictures in place.  Hence the ISOC Board, rather than the IESG.

4. Addendum:

I'll offer one more item I think basic to discussion of this topic.  For 
now I'm not suggesting specific wording changes, but do want to 
circulate the key point, because I think it has a profound effect upon 
one's thinking about harassment.

We typically think of harassment as being a problem only for the 
Respondent and the Target.  However there is a third, critical 
participant:  The rest of us.

I'll offer a precept that we need to keep in mind:

      Harassment behavior does not merely create a hostile work
      environment for the target(s).

      It creates it for everyone.

To the extent that participants watch others get treated badly and do 
not then see the misbehavior get corrected, there is chilling effect 
across the IETF.

Again, thanks to you both for working on this.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:52:04 -0500

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> complete specification of the standing Ombud function. It also needs
> a different appeals body.

   I agree with Dave.

> handling a harassment report needs training, coupled with expert

   I am not familiar with what is available in the way of training;
but I am quite sure that no amount of training will remove the need
for occasional expert advice.

> with good community understanding of the function and approval for it. 

   +1

> think right at one moment or another.

   I tend to agree with Dave; but my immediate reaction was, "The IETF
Chair function already covers too much. Perhaps Jari can handle it,
but we shouldn't put this much work on IETF chairs thal follow him."

> community approval, not merely community review.

   "Community approval" is judged by the IESG now -- what I see as
important is that we not ask the IESG to propose the changes as we go.

> Hence the requirements and details for the function need separate
> and stable specification, 

   +1

> with community support around it.

   Whatever...

> Then the IETF Chair can reasonably be asked to implement it.

   We really should limit the workload upon future IETF chairs. (I see
nothing wrong with Jari appointing the first Ombud-whatevers.)

> shoulders of experienced IETF volunteers.

   Agreed.

> sensitivity than is reasonable to demand from the IESG or IAB.

   Perhaps the IAB could manage this, but I strongly recommend against
asking the IESG to handle such appeals; and the IAB doesn't feel right
either...

>      -- of 3 IETF volunteers. This is small enough to make efficient
>      and coherent workings workings more likely, along with maintain a
>      reasonable degree of confidentiality.

   +1

>      handling harassment complaints.

   (Someone has to define what that includes. While I trust Jari to
come up with a reasonable definition, I suggest that the definition
be published before appointing the initial board.)

>      harassment-savvy attorney, to act as advisers.

   I don't know how hard that will be, but it sounds like a very good
idea.

>      Target and Respondent to formulate a sanitized summary of the
>      complaint and 'defense'.

    I strongly recommend the committee be responsible for re-stating
the complaint, and hopefully the response. Re-stating in clear terms
is often critical to finding a path to resolution.

>      This will be used if there is an appeal.

   It will be essential to establishing a basis for considering an
appeal within the IETF.

>      It also will serve to get the involved parties to focus on the
>      essential details.

   That may be optimistic, but IMHO _some_ basis for shared focus is
essential to the process.

>      The wordsmithing goal of the sanitization is to produce a version
>      that can be shown outside of this initial group.

   This is not always necessary, or even possible; but when practical,
it _will_ be helpful.

>      Possibly only an appeals committee but possibly even public.

   IMHO, even what is shown to an appeals committee needs to be agreed
to by the parties; and the initial re-statement shouldn't require such
agreement.

>      offense and formulate responses they deem appropriate.

   +1

>      decision. Appeal is to the ISOC Board of Trustees.

   Appeal directly to ISOC BoT seems reasonable to me. If this becomes
a problem, they seem the right group to propose an alternative.

   Note that none of this concerns the content of RFCs or architecture
of the Internet; so I see no reason to involve the IAB (and I'm quite
opposed to involving the IESG).

> legal strictures in place.  Hence the ISOC Board, rather than the IESG.

   +1

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:55:51 +1300

I too agree with most of Dave's comments. Just a few remarks below:

On 23/02/2014 11:12, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> shoulders of experienced IETF volunteers.

However, if we end up with an Ombudsteam, I think it would
be worthwhile to find someone with real-life experience in this
area, but outside the IETF, as a member of the team.

...
> harassment-savvy attorney, to act as advisers.

I am not so sure you want people with an HR background. As I read
http://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/about-the-role-of-an-ombudsman.php,
we are slightly misreading the classical role of an Ombudsman;
that's fine, but we do need advisers or team members with dispute-resolution
and mediation experience.

Also - an attorney familiar with the laws of which jurisdiction
(including the laws of trans-border harassment)? I think counsel
would have to be identified case-by-case, if needed.
...

> legal strictures in place.  Hence the ISOC Board, rather than the IESG.

Just a note that up to now, we have strictly reserved the ISOC Board
route for claims that our "procedures themselves ... are claimed
to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties." While I think taking the appeals in a
harassment claim right out of the normal checks and balances
is reasonable (and much better than a system where the "management
chain" can protect its own misbehaviour by bouncing appeals), it
should be noted as a significant change.

> participant:  The rest of us.

Related to that, the language needs to include cases where either
the Target or the Respondent is a group of people. Group harassment
is not unknown.

    Brian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 08:16:29 +0100

Hi Dave,

I support your comments and suggestions. However, I have few
comments/suggestions below,

On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:

> harassment complaints, is to ensure that the IETF is legitimately inviting
> to the widest possible range of participants, and hence to encourage their
> active participation.
>
>      Groups with more diversity produce better work.  Groups that suffer
> harassment of participants inherently reduce real diversity.

Groups should have the IETF vision repeated in meeting as the note well,
because many WGs may forget that.

>      In spite of the IETF's long history of open participation, the fact
> is that daily IETF life often includes explicit and implicit tolerance of
> various forms of harassment.
>
> easier than figuring out how to produce a practical implementation of the
> policy...
>
>
>
> The Details:
>
> perspective of most IETF participants, touching delicate and painful legal
> and personnel management issues.  Anyone put in a position of handling a
> harassment report needs training, coupled with expert advice.  Raw
> intelligence and good intentions are not enough.
>
> (On the other hand, the principal actors in a harassment complaint are not
> employees of the IETF.  So there might be some additional degrees of
> freedom in the way that IETF-related complaints are handled, compared with
> what a regular company has to do.)
>
>
> 0. Defining Harassment
>
> I think the IESG Statement provides extended text defining and describing
> harassment that is quite reasonable, in tone and scope.  The text should be
> incorporated into an IETF-approved document, which is what I'm hoping
> Adrian and Pete's draft becomes.
>
>
> 1. Ombud Formation
>
> with good community understanding of the function and approval for it. The
> proposal defers the substance of this issue to the IETF Chair. While the
> Chair is probably the right function for overseeing formation of the Ombud,
> the framework for the office should not be left to the vagaries of whoever
> happens to be Chair and whatever they happen to think right at one moment
> or another.
>
> and details for the function need separate and stable specification, with
> community support around it.  Then the IETF Chair can reasonably be asked
> to implement it.
>
> protecting the company than about ensuring appropriate handling of actual
> abuse.
>
> So it is better to rest the responsibility for Ombud work on the shoulders
> of experienced IETF volunteers.
>
>
> 2. Appeal
>
>      a. Formulate a standing Complaints Committee -- called the Ombud --
> of 3 IETF volunteers.  This is small enough to make efficient and coherent
> workings workings more likely, along with maintain a reasonable degree of
> confidentiality.
>
>      b. Give them the relevant professional manager's training in handling
> harassment complaints.
>

We may not need to recruit (May get costly) we can outsourcing contract as
pay per file, which I don't believe in IETF we will get more than 2
reported harassing per year, but if I am wrong even after the draft
approved then you point is the right advice to IETF managers to look at the
financial costs trade offs.

> Target and Respondent to formulate a sanitized summary of the complaint and
> 'defense'.  This will be used if there is an appeal.  It also will serve to
> get the involved parties to focus on the essential details. The
> wordsmithing goal of the sanitization is to produce a version that can be
> shown outside of this initial group.  Possibly only an appeals committee
> but possibly even public.
>
>      b.  The Ombud works with the principals to assess the claimed offense
> and formulate responses they deem appropriate.
>
>      c.  The Ombud modifies the sanitized writeup to include a sanitized
> summary of the decision.
>
>      For a topic like this, I think one level of appeal is sufficient and
> that the sensitive personnel and legal aspects of this topic warrant

Your very right, ISOC rather than IESG, because IESG were selected mostly
for technical engineering work/problem not social  problem.

> now I'm not suggesting specific wording changes, but do want to circulate
> the key point, because I think it has a profound effect upon one's thinking
> about harassment.
>
> Respondent and the Target.  However there is a third, critical participant:
>  The rest of us.

Yes I agree and already pointed in my comments posted previously that there
are two targets not one.

> To the extent that participants watch others get treated badly and do not
> then see the misbehavior get corrected, there is chilling effect across the
> IETF.

I seen that happen once public misbehaving in one WG and I told my AD
related about that, but he said it was solved privately  but still I was a
target and while I was remotely participating I felt that I am targeted
also, so decided not to become face to face participant in 2012 (now my
first come will be in few days).

> Again, thanks to you both for working on this.

Thanks to you and all participants that are working together to solve IETF
problems. If we all work together and respect each other all
times in working and not working, then we will have best documents produced
and published.

AB

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:47:57 +0100

> 1. Ombud Formation

Please either call this "ombudsman" or come up with a different word.

The word "ombud" in Swedish (where "Ombudsman" comes from) does
definitely not have the same neutral meaning as "ombudsman" has. In
fact, "ombud" is absolutely not neutral but a proxy that acts on behalf
of someone else.

I.e. "ombud" and "ombudsman" are two different words, and you can not
"just" remove the ending "man" that part from meaning "male" also means
"human".

   Patrik

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:25:13 +0000

In English, your Swedish ombud would be a proctor. but since the Scandanavian countries changed the ombud role over time (etymology according to Wikipedia), does this matter?

I think we're back to ombudsentity, though Grand Inquisitor has a nice ring to it.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood

be pure! be vigilant! behave!
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström [[email-masked]]
Sent: 23 February 2014 09:47
To: [email-masked]; Adrian Farrel; Pete Resnick
Cc: [email-masked] Discussion
Subject: Re: Basic Issues  (was Re: anti-harassment procedures)

   Patrik

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 08:35:36 -0500

> "just" remove the ending "man" that part from meaning "male" also means

Andrea proposed ombuddy, but it's probably a bit too irreverant.   What about ombudsperson?

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:41:33 +0100

> Andrea proposed ombuddy, but it's probably a bit too irreverant.   What about ombudsperson?

Please do not go down that path at all.

Once again, either "ombudsman" or a word not related to it.

"ombudsman" has in Swedish nothing to do with gender of the person
having that role, but if people do feel it has gender connotation, use a
completely different word.

Yes, we do have these discussions in Sweden as well...

   Patrik

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 08:49:59 -0500

> completely different word.

This was a common theme in feminist discourse in the previous century in the U.S. as well, but I think the consensus at this point is that "man" really does have a masculine connotation at least in english.

We've also seen a trend toward the elimination of the -ess suffix, for example serious female actors are no longer referred to as actresses.   So possibly a -or word might be a better choice, if we could come up with one.

I vote for "auror": someone who listens, notwithstanding the different meaning in the Harry Potter books.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:20:47 -0800

> This was a common theme in feminist discourse in the previous century
> in the U.S. as well, but I think the consensus at this point is that
> "man" really does have a masculine connotation at least in english.

To underscore this...

Given the topic of harassment and given the types of behaviors that can
and do qualify under that, the idea that we'd use a title that is
overtly gender-specific strikes me as counter-productively insensitive.

To the point of being impressive, but not in a good way.

d/

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 09:34:14 -0500

Yes, lots of public institutions in the USA have gone to ombudsperson, as
has the UN in New York.  But it's a poor portmanteau. Best to start again
with a gender-neutral word in any language.

How about just mediator?

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:47:50 +0000

They're not mediating between anyone and anything. How about "complaints officer"

On Feb 23, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Yes, lots of public institutions in the USA have gone to ombudsperson, as has the UN in New York.  But it's a poor portmanteau. Best to start again with a gender-neutral word in any language.

How about just mediator?

Email secured by Check Point

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:26:26 +0000

On 02/23/2014 03:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  As I read

Seems to be some good material on that site. We should
copy where we can I'd hope.

S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:28:44 -0800

Hi Patrik,
>"just" remove the ending "man" that part from meaning "male" also means

A quick search displays 7,480,000 hits for 
"ombudsman" and 679,000 hits for 
"ombudsperson".  https://www.ombudsman.bc.ca/ 
uses the word 
"ombudsperson".  http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu 
uses the word 
"ombudsman".  http://www.ombudsman.cl/ uses 
"defensor del pueblo".  The choice is clear if 
the decision is to be based on factual 
information.  It is better to choose another word 
if some people are not comfortable with the word "ombudsman".

On a lighter note, it has been said that "we 
reject: kings, presidents and voting" [1].  There 
is a word in there which is not gender-neutral [2].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/images/submission3_002.jpg
2. "Political correctness differs from more 
old-fashioned methods of self-censorship.  Before 
the era of political correctness, people already 
understood that it was a bad idea to offend or 
upset people.  They had complex systems of 
manners that involved a certain amount of 
dishonesty to spare people's feelings. Some 
truths were not to be spoken in public, in good 
company, in front of the servants, etc."

---

From: Vesna Manojlovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:38:02 +0100

Dear all,

> prompt and fair fashion, and that has a positive effect.

In this case, I think that even mere "+1" is important to hear.

+1

In addition to the general gratefulness and congratulations,
I want to say that this procedure will also serve as an example
for other communities - conferences, collaboration bodies and 
hackerspaces, to name just a few that come to mind.

Regards,
Vesna

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:34:26 -0800

Hi Brian,
>line between legitimate discussion and review and objectionable

I am responding to the above as it is one of the difficulties 
encountered in an interaction with another person.

If you repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's work, 
that person might perceive that as victimization.  I'd say try and 
keep it impersonal as far as possible.  It is better to avoid point 
out too many syntax errors if you are not sure whether the person 
uses English as a first language.

I'll separate legitimate discussion and review.  In the review you 
can easily point out the substantive errors or syntax errors.  I am 
not sure how to explain how the discussion can be a problem.  I would 
leave that to experience.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:43:03 +1300

On 25/02/2014 06:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
> If you repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's work, that
> person might perceive that as victimization.  I'd say try and keep it
> impersonal as far as possible.  It is better to avoid point out too many
> syntax errors if you are not sure whether the person uses English as a
> first language.

Of course. My point was that it's hard to define a precise boundary between
legitimate critical discussion and mild harassment, and we need to be sensitive
to that in the text. It's more important to have a process that deals
effectively with *serious* and highly unpleasant behaviours that we clearly
should not tolerate.

     Brian

> 
> I'll separate legitimate discussion and review.  In the review you can
> easily point out the substantive errors or syntax errors.  I am not sure
> how to explain how the discussion can be a problem.  I would leave that
> to experience.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>