Subject: Anti-harassment policy and ombudsperson

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:22:00 -0800

As has been previously discussed, the IESG is setting up an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. I would like to thank everyone for feedback. We have today adopted an IESG Statement on the matter as follows:

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

In the near future we will proceed to select and train ombudsperson(s) as confidential initial contact points for situations where there is a concern. In the meantime, Linda Klieforth from ISOC HR department is attending IETF-88 in Vancouver. She has kindly promised to act as a temporary ombudsperson during the meeting, should concerns arise. She can be reached at [email-masked]. Thank you, Linda!

The policy will be reviewed once sufficient experience on its use has been gained.

Jari Arkko for the IESG

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:55:35 -0800

On 11/3/2013 2:22 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
> As has been previously discussed, the IESG is setting up an
> anti-harassment policy for the IETF.

Jari,

I've been considering a posting like this for some months.  Your timing 
is therefore unfortunately fortuitous...

 From my reading of the public responses to this initiative, there does 
indeed appear to be strong community support for pursuing an 
anti-harassment policy.

However...

There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses, and 
even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough consensus 
for the text you've just announced.[*]

      In formal terms, it's not at all clear (to me, at least) that the
      IESG has the authority to declare something like an IETF-wide
      anti-harassment policy by fiat, no matter how laudable the effort.

What was -- and remains -- needed is for the IESG to work through 
feedback issues publicly and on the record, the same as any working 
group needs to do, and then to issue a formal Last Call and to require 
explicit and informed statements that produce a clear sense of active 
community rough consensus in support.

I'm am quite confident that anti-harassment is a topic that will get 
that support.  But really, the IESG hasn't done the work that's needed 
yet, no matter how excellent or poor the latest text might be.

d/

[*]  This only the latest of what I believe is is a relatively 
long-standing pattern for IESG and IAB documents, to be very selective 
in responding to feedback and then to summarily decide on final forms. 
The IAB probably has the formal authority to behave that way, 
independent of whether it is advisable.  I believe the IESG rarely, if 
ever, does.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 18:18:56 -0500

FWIW, I largely agree with Dave.  I think the motives here are
entirely appropriate, but the IESG's handing down dicta is
questionable -- and could be quite problematic if a situation
appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.

To the extent to which there is concern in the community that
the IESG has become too large a job that thereby excludes people
who ought to be candidates (as suggested by other/earlier
threads), the community should be consulted on whether these are
good tasks for the IESG to take on, independent of the details
of the documents.    It may also be useful to remind people who
are convinced that the IESG has consistently gotten these sorts
of things either right or wrong that this is the right season
for explaining one's position to the Nomcom.

best,
   john

--On Sunday, 03 November, 2013 14:55 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've been considering a posting like this for some months.
> Your timing is therefore unfortunately fortuitous...
> 
> 
>  From my reading of the public responses to this initiative,
> there does indeed appear to be strong community support for
> pursuing an anti-harassment policy.
> 
> However...
> 
> There was detailed feedback provided which received no
> responses, and even worse, there has been no record
> established of IETF rough consensus for the text you've just
> announced.[*]
> 
> 
>...

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:35:25 -0800

> for explaining one's position to the Nomcom.

In effect I believe we’re delegating. so if you believe we’re doing to much you should account for that.

A less temporary construct of the ombudsman should be expected construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don’t think it’s a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a lot of time on that until there is one for us to consider.

I believe that the IESG can get this wrong, which is why we shouldn’t be dictating the detailed mechanics.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:48:22 -0800

At 14:55 03-11-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>However...
>
>There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses, 
>and even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough 
>consensus for the text you've just announced.[*]

>appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.

I agree with what Dave Crocker and John Klensin wrote (re. the two 
messages on the thread).  The public record does not show that there 
were responses to the questions which were raised.  The policy might 
be viewed as being dictated instead of one which people have 
understood and have agreed to.

The motive may be for the best but it is not a good reason, in my 
humble opinion, not to have a discussion with the part of the IETF 
Community which put in the time and effort to provide feedback.

At 15:35 03-11-2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
>In effect I believe we're delegating. so if you believe we're doing 
>to much you should account for that.
>
>A less temporary construct of the ombudsman should be expected 
>construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don't 
>think it's a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a 
>lot of time on that until there is one for us to consider.
>
>I believe that the IESG can get this wrong, which is why we 
>shouldn't be dictating the detailed mechanics.

There seems to me a misunderstanding.  I read what Dave and John 
wrote as being about the lack of response to the feedback instead of 
a problem with the delegation to an ombudsman.  I don't read anything 
in Dave or John's messages as something to do with the detailed 
mechanics of the policy.  I don't read anything in what Dave or John 
wrote as objecting to the policy.  It is not a matter of the IESG 
"can get this wrong".

The entire matter might be read as:

   1. The IESG posts a draft of a policy and requests feedback.

   2. Nobody involved in the decision about the draft responds
      to the feedback.

   3. The IESG approves the draft as a policy.

The alternative in such a case is something which most people would 
not want as it is a matter which could easily be resolved by talking 
to each other.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:59:13 -0800

On 11/03/2013 04:48 PM, SM wrote:
> were responses to the questions which were raised.  The policy might be
> viewed as being dictated instead of one which people have understood and
> have agreed to.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if the organization is unable
to come to consensus on an anti-harassment policy?

One of the problems that I think we're facing and that we're not
dealing with is that consensus processes are not a very good way
to protect the rights of the minority, marginalized, etc.  This
should not be construed as an endorsement of the IESG going off
and unilaterally developing a policy without much input from the
body, but I am saying we've got a problem around this kind of
thing.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 03:18:32 +0000

On Monday, November 4, 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:

> to protect the rights of the minority, marginalized, etc.

I think the sound or rights of community (majority, minorities, and
diversity) are not represented, because we have no WG related to policies.
Minorities of community (north America) are already dominated consensus
because they seem to have become the IETF majority. WG serve rights of both
majority and minorities, but non-WG serves only management or minority of
the community. We only protect community rights if we can represent
community through a body (as as IETF WG) but there is no body for community
related to policies and discussions.

  This
> body, but I am saying we've got a problem around this kind of

We need two body working together, as having a IETF WG (not assigned Design
Group team) and the IESG, this way we can have policies that don't ignore
any rights.

AB

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:38:48 -0800

On 11/3/2013 3:35 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> In effect I believe we’re delegating.

Ahh.  OK.

So you can point to the IETF document that indicates that this sort of 
thing has been delegated?   I certainly hope that you are not suggesting 
that the IESG was delegated authority to choose to do whatever it wants, 
no matter how laudable what it wants might be.

The only documents I know of, concerning IESG scope of work, have 
nothing to do with setting IETF personnel policies by fiat.

> so if you believe we’re doing to much you should account for that.

Joel, you have the responsibilities here reversed, absent something that 
delegates along the lines of "the IESG can do anything it wants".

The affirmative action here is being taken by the IESG.  The IESG 
therefore needs to establish that it has authority to do this without 
IETF consensus.  This is not a nit-picky point; it is a fundamental 
question of IESG scope of authority.

 > construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don’t
> think it’s a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a lot
 > of time on that until there is one for us to consider.

1. I've no idea what the above means.

2.  The IESG anti-harassment pronouncement refers to an Ombudsman, but I 
cannot find any other documentation about it.  Perhaps you can provide a 
pointer.

3.  "less temporary"?  huh?

> shouldn’tbe dictating the detailed mechanics.

1.  I have no idea what the above means.

d/

---

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:38:34 -0800

Dave,

For what it is worth, I agree that we've not communicated enough about the development of the final IESG statement. I did respond to one general class of points made about the draft policy, we did consider all input, and we made the changes that we felt were possible and justified by the input. But it would certainly have been good to provide a detailed response to all input and continue the dialogue. My apologies. In my defence I wanted to have a stated policy and a contact person in place for the meeting that was about to start.

I do however agree that a strong, full IETF (rough) consensus policy as a BCP would be very desirable. That has in fact been at the back of our heads (but again not communicated well). Remember that we have only made an IESG statement about the topic. I would actually like to make the stronger statement - either as a standalone BCP or as part of 3184bis. I think you'll agree that if there ever was a truly bad situation, such a policy would be better support for action that might be required.

I certainly believe that we should pursue such a policy.

Jari

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:03:25 -0800

I wanted to state that I think the IESG did about the right thing.  I think the policy they put together is appropriate and can be improved if later if we should get some experience.  I hope we don't get very much "running code" and it won't be necessary to invoke it, but I think it is good that we now have an anti-harassment policy.

Bob

On Nov 3, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've been considering a posting like this for some months.  Your timing is therefore unfortunately fortuitous...
> 
> 
> From my reading of the public responses to this initiative, there does indeed appear to be strong community support for pursuing an anti-harassment policy.
> 
> However...
> 
> There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses, and even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough consensus for the text you've just announced.[*]
> 
> 
> What was -- and remains -- needed is for the IESG to work through feedback issues publicly and on the record, the same as any working group needs to do, and then to issue a formal Last Call and to require explicit and informed statements that produce a clear sense of active community rough consensus in support.
> 
> I'm am quite confident that anti-harassment is a topic that will get that support.  But really, the IESG hasn't done the work that's needed yet, no matter how excellent or poor the latest text might be.
> 
> d/
> 
> [*]  This only the latest of what I believe is is a relatively long-standing pattern for IESG and IAB documents, to be very selective in responding to feedback and then to summarily decide on final forms. The IAB probably has the formal authority to behave that way, independent of whether it is advisable.  I believe the IESG rarely, if ever, does.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 00:10:59 -0800

Hi Melinda,
>to come to consensus on an anti-harassment policy?

It is unchartered territory [1].

>body, but I am saying we've got a problem around this kind of

Consensus processes are not about protecting the rights of the 
minority, etc.  There are safeguards in the process for that.  Those 
safeguards can be invoked.

Regards,
-sm

1. It does not mean that there isn't any recourse.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:00:41 -0800

On 11/04/2013 12:10 AM, SM wrote:
 > are safeguards in the process for that.  Those safeguards
> can be invoked.

What are those?

Melinda

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:40:42 -0800

> appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.

I have a related question: Is the IESG the right body to be making these
sorts of declarations in the first place?  It seems to me that an
engineering steering group is a bit outside of its jurisdiction to be
establishing what amount to human resources positions.  The analogy to the
corporate environment, i.e., technical managers and team leads, would
certainly be the wrong body to be taking on the creation of a higher-level
HR function.

Shouldn't this be coming from one of the operational bodies higher up?

-MSK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:09:33 -0500

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:40:42AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> sorts of declarations in the first place?

It seems to me that the collection of ADs does indeed have the overall
management responsibility for how we run all WGs, lists, and so on, in
exactly the same way that WG chairs are supposed to run their
individual meetings and lists in a way that keeps the focus on the
work and avoids diving into _ad hominem_ rat-holes.  I don't see how
this particular case is special.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:18:03 -0500

--On Monday, 04 November, 2013 07:40 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I have a related question: Is the IESG the right body to be
> making these sorts of declarations in the first place?  It
> seems to me that an engineering steering group is a bit
> outside of its jurisdiction to be establishing what amount to
> human resources positions.  The analogy to the corporate
> environment, i.e., technical managers and team leads, would
> certainly be the wrong body to be taking on the creation of a
> higher-level HR function.
> 

In a way, your question is another symptom of the problem.  A
volunteer organization for which it is important that people
_not_ have to apply for membership and for whom applying
sanctions against a participant is one of the most problematic
actions we can take has no business having a "higher-level HR
function".

As to the body, there are basically two choices:

(1) ISOC could do it for/to us, but we've probably be _really_
unhappy about that.

(2) The IESG, IAB, or IAOC could decide some action was
necessary and move toward taking it.  I think we could quibble
for a rather long time about which of those bodies was most (or
least) appropriate to do it or create another group to do so.
While my personal guess is that the IESG is least obnoxious for
this sort of situation, I think the key issue isn't the body but
how it proceeds.  For that purpose, it seems critical to me
(and, if I've correctly understood him, to Dave) that there be
real, explicit, community buy-in on any results and meaningful
IESG (or other body) accountability to the community for the
results. 

What follows that is where I suspect I may differ from Dave a
bit.  I'm prepared to have the IESG say "We have concluded that
doing something to reduce the harassment level and potential
around the IETF is important and no one has really disputed that
conclusion in on-list discussions.  It is clear that there is no
consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely
that one will emerge.   Sometimes, it just isn't acceptable to
have lack of consensus (even rough) block doing anything at all,
so we are going to make the following moves...  Here are the
names of those on the IESG who supported that move; if you don't
like it, or if we take actions like this too often for the
community's taste, fire us.".  Now, I'd be a lot happier if the
hypothetical action included a policy that was clearly
experimental with an evaluation plan for going back to the
community after a year or so (thanks to Brian Carpenter for at
least part of that idea).   I'd be happier yet if that
evaluation plan included some meaningful measurements (but the
design, execution, and analysis of such measurements is part of
my real professional field, so I know better than most how hard
that is and what the traps are in trying it).  In a sufficiently
unusual situation, the presence of some data and experience, if
the community can't reach (even rough) consensus on what to do,
running code may trump consensus.

But, generally, I think we should all be concerned when the IESG
starts making proclamations about important IETF participation
issues, especially if those proclamations could lead to
sanctions that could be very troublesome indeed.  If the IESG
concludes that they need to take a significant action that is
not the result of clear community discussion, support, and rough
consensus, then I expect them to follow the spirit of the
RFC2026 Variance Procedure, i.e., explain what is being done and
why it is being done and to put their AD "jobs" on the line when
doing so.  Whether explicit or not, I think ADs assenting to a
final action on a significant procedural change that doesn't
have the sort of support and process behind it that Dave
outlines should be asking themselves whether they are prepared
to resign (not just wait for the Nomcom or a recall that has
become procedurally impossible) if the community doesn't go
along with the action.  It should be considered that serious.

Just my opinion.

    best,
    john

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:50:36 -0500

I suspect if it was just about appointing and training some
ombudsperson(s), who could talk to the people involved after someone
feels harassed, and the first couple of situations were resolved to
the satisfaction of all involved, I'm sure no one will complain.

However, it's said that hard cases make bad law, and the potential
problem will come when someone claims harassment, and objective
outsiders either feel that it clearly wasn't harassment, or it was at
best borderline, and in the worst case, the person who claims
harassment attempts to try the case in the court of public opinion,
and demands that, per the policy, that the claimed offender be banned
from all IETF activities going forward.  It will be at that point,
where the IESG gets asked to enforce sanctions, where the lack of
predefined processes could end up turning this into a huge mess.

I'm sure that we all hope that we don't end up in this corner case.
But hopefully, the IESG has thought about how it would plan to respond
in cases where a quick intervention and discussion with the affected
parties from the ombudsperson isn't sufficient to resolve the dispute.

	     	 	      	    	       	  - Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:51:17 +1300

Comments in line...

>> Shouldn't this be coming from one of the operational bodies

My first reaction to this question was: there is no "higher up"
except the IETF as a whole. So the question is really whether our
steering group chose to steer in a direction that the IETF as
a whole accepts (at the level of rough consensus).

> (1) ISOC could do it for/to us, but we've probably be _really_

Certainly I would (and I've been a member of ISOC since 1992).

> least part of that idea). 

Well yes, I think a one-year trial run would be a wise approach,
but I should say that although a bit more to and fro with the
community would have been better, I also understand Jari's desire
to get something in place before this week. So I'm not as critical
as Dave and John. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the IESG
doen't have *authority* in this area, even though they clearly
feel a responsibility. So there's no way out of dialogue.

BTW personally I didn't comment on the draft policy because it
seemed good enough and not worth twiddling the details. It's the
execution that matters, and that depends on the ombudshuman much more
than on anything written.

   Brian

> I'd be happier yet if that

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:16:43 -0800

On 11/4/2013 8:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> It is clear that there is no
> that one will emerge.

FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some example text, 
I've heard similar assertions offlist and want to note that I believe 
this conclusion is premature.

There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to pursue IETF 
rough consensus on specific text for this polichy.

Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not previously 
announced, and b) is entirely artificial.  While pursuing this topic 
expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been given no basis for deciding 
that it had to be in place by this week.

I've no doubt that any proposed text will get some push-back and that 
some of that push-back will not converge towards acceptance by some folk 
raising concerns.  We can't please everyone.  But as Pete Resnick's 
continuing exercise on IETF consensus shows, we don't have to, although 
we do have to attend to their concerns.

The obligation here is to go through our established process and try to 
reach IETF rough consensus.  I happen to think that the current topic is 
one we will, in fact, be able to reach a clear sense of community rough 
consensus, even in spite of what no doubt will be a portion of the 
community continuing to be unhappy.  (People keep forgetting that 
'rough' has two meanings and that both apply to the IETF... and that 
that's ok.)

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:36:23 -0500

--On Monday, 04 November, 2013 09:16 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some
> example text, I've heard similar assertions offlist and want
> to note that I believe this conclusion is premature.
> 
> There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to
> pursue IETF rough consensus on specific text for this polichy.
> 
> Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not
> previously announced, and b) is entirely artificial.  While
> pursuing this topic expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been
> given no basis for deciding that it had to be in place by this
> week.
>...

I agree with most of this and claim that most of my comments
apply whether one assumes that we can reach consensus on text or
not.  Part of the difference in our perspectives/ assumptions is
that your note seems to assume that we are in agreement on
principles and merely need to agree on text.   I believe that,
if we did agree on principles, it is reasonably likely that we
could reach rough consensus on text.

I don't think we are there yet.  In particular, I've seen no
convergence about whether it is appropriate to discuss sanction
and what such sanctions might be.   I've seen no convergence
about whether an ombudsperson model is viable and, if it is,
whether there is a practical "training" model for folks within
the community and a reasonable model for how such people might
be appointed.     In each case, objections or concerns that seem
sensible have been raised about the direction in which the IESGs
appears to be headed.

YMMD about those concerns (and others), but I suggest that there
is at least a reasonable hypothesis that we are nowhere near the
point at which there is enough agreement about principles to
make agreement about text particularly meaningful.

    john

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:16:26 -0800

On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:36 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> and what such sanctions might be.

The IESG statement includes what seems like the logical terminus of that. namely exclusion of a participant from IETF activites.

We have some experience with actions like this associated with mailing list disruption, that form of disruptive behavior is dealt with 3683 actions.

It seems entirely inappropriate to process harassment complaints through a public process, to avoid reputional damage to either the accuser or the accused, public retaliation, or engagement in fighting these things out via public opinion which is damaging to everyone inlcuding the IETF.

>   I've seen no convergence
> be appointed.  

The domain skillset is outside that of the internet standards process. Historically such people are drawn from outside the community they serve. I imagine that domain specific training would originate outside the IETF.

>   In each case, objections or concerns that seem

> make agreement about text particularly meaningful.

On the on the contrary, I think it’s reasonable to expect the interim ombudsperson’s contact information and the communication channel is important as useful as is the the IESG statement however much refinement may be required to have something that we can live iwth long-term.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:12:10 -0800 (PST)

...

> The IESG statement includes what seems like the logical terminus of that.
> namely exclusion of a participant from IETF activites.

> We have some experience with actions like this associated with mailing list
> disruption, that form of disruptive behavior is dealt with 3683 actions.

In light of recent events, I would have to call that experience "mixed".

> It seems entirely inappropriate to process harassment complaints through a
> public process, to avoid reputional damage to either the accuser or the
> accused, public retaliation, or engagement in fighting these things out via
> public opinion which is damaging to everyone inlcuding the IETF.

I couldn't agree more.

> The domain skillset is outside that of the internet standards process.
> Historically such people are drawn from outside the community they serve. I
> imagine that domain specific training would originate outside the IETF.

I'd say this approach offers the best possibility of success. That said,
my past experience with "trained ombudspersons" has been considerably shy
of stellar, and as such I'm not optimistic of a good outcome here.

And I would hesitate to assign blame for this outcome. This is one of those
jobs where things are boring and routine right up to the point where they
aren't, and then all hell breaks loose. This is a very difficult job
profile to satisfy.

> On the on the contrary, I think it’s reasonable to expect the interim
> ombudsperson’s contact information and the communication channel is important
> as useful as is the the IESG statement however much refinement may be required
> to have something that we can live iwth long-term.

I have to say this sounds a little bit slapdash to me.

				Ned

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:14:53 -0800

We are writing to thank the IESG and others who were involved for establishing an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. We support the policy, the IESG's authority to issue such a policy, and the creation of the ombudsperson role. Having a confidant with whom to discuss harassment will be most welcome and it is our hope that by establishing this policy, incidents of harassment at IETF meetings will be reduced in the future.

Sincerely,
CJ Aronson
Mary Barnes
Alissa Cooper
Avri Doria
Nalini Elkins
Janet Gunn
Merike Kaeo
Mirjam Kuehne
Allison Mankin
Ines Robles
Marie-Jose Montpetit
Kathleen Moriarty
Karen O'Donoghue
Radia Perlman
Eve Schooler
Larissa Shapiro
Melinda Shore
Lynn St. Amour
Tina Tsou
Suzanne Woolf
Xiaoqing Zhu

On Nov 3, 2013, at 2:22 PM, IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> 88attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/88attendees
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 04:00:22 +0100

John and Dave,

having reviewed the thread, I sense a reasonably strong consensus in the
community that "this is a good idea, someone needs to do it, we're not
really objecting to the IESG doing it by declaration".

I like IESG statements - because they are IESG statements, it's clear
that the IESG is responsible for making them, and they don't have to
claim that the community has been consulted thoroughly and clearly
demonstrated a consensus for whatever action is needed.

Establishing consensus takes time - especially for issues where the
community really has rather few members who want to debate the details
of the issue, and many would much prefer that someone else do something
that's within reasonable distance of OK, but won't really engage in the
debate.

I've found that the longer I'm away from the administrative regions of
the IETF, the harder I find it to find energy to engage myself in
debates about things that are already approximately OK. And I think
there are many who are even less willing to engage on these issues than
I am.

I'm glad the IESG is grasping the nettle and making a declaration here.
It's a much better thing to do than to let the issue linger for months
and years while we wait for enough people to engage on the issue for a
consensus to be declared.

Yours, pessimistically - Harald

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 03:39:48 +0000

On 04 Nov 2013, at 17:14, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We are writing to thank the IESG and others who were involved for establishing an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. We support the policy, the IESG's authority to issue such a policy, and the creation of the ombudsperson role.

Fully agreed!

Lars

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:41:41 -0800

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We are writing to thank the IESG and others who were involved for
> establishing an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. We support the policy,
> the IESG's authority to issue such a policy, and the creation of the
> ombudsperson role. Having a confidant with whom to discuss harassment will
> be most welcome and it is our hope that by establishing this policy,
> incidents of harassment at IETF meetings will be reduced in the future.
>

+1.

-MSK

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:56:24 -0500

--On Sunday, 03 November, 2013 16:59 -0800 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I agree with what Dave Crocker and John Klensin wrote (re.
>> the two messages on the thread).  The public record does not
>> show that there were responses to the questions which were
>> raised.  The policy might be viewed as being dictated instead
>> of one which people have understood and have agreed to.
> 

Melinda,

Let me see if I can be both brief and clear:

 * I think the harassment problem is real
 * I believe that the IETF would be better off if there
	were some systematic mechanism for dealing it is and
	discouraging incidents.
 * I believe that, as policies go, the IESG's proposed
	language and approach are about as good as we are going
	to get without actual experience in the community.
 * I believe that my opinion on the above is a single
	voice in the community, not a source of authority, no
	matter how much I believe in it.
	
I also believe that 

* we cannot have procedural rules for every situation and that
there are some situations in which the costs and risks of
inaction exceed the both risks of picking a solution in the
absence of consensus and the costs of waiting for a perfect
solution to emerge.    And that

* unless we are going to get completely consumed by trying to
have a procedure to cover every case and mechanisms for forcing
consensus in matters of taste, the IESG needs very broad
authority to make up an apply rules to deal with conditions that
are both sufficiently important and sufficiently unusual.
However, unless we are willing to accept the IESG a oligarchy or
privy council, even if not as king, then I think the community
needs to require that the IESG explain the reasons why they
believe that such extraordinary and/or preemptive actions are
necessary and that the IESG must be willing to be strictly
accountable for those decisions.

I am also very concerned --because I'm paranoid and worry about
such things-- that, were the IETF ever to apply sanctions
against someone who was inclined and had the resources to
strongly push back and the mechanism used to define the
procedures was irregular and violated our basic rules, we could
find ourselves with far more difficult problems than whether or
not there was enough insurance to protect IESG members.

Precisely because I think the problem is both significant and
important I want make sure that whatever remedies are adopted
are considered and adopted with careful attention to our rules
for how decisions are made and ratified.

That is all.  
     john

That is all.  This is _not_, for me, about the requirement, the
underlying issues, and

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:39:30 -0800

> for how decisions are made and ratified.

G'day.

Some folks are aware that I often agree with John's analysis of a 
problem but rarely agree with his conclusions.  As has been the pattern 
this week, this is one of those exceptions.

The topic at hand falls into the world of human resources, notably the 
delicate topic of defining acceptable behavior and disciplining 
personnel who fail to conform.  The topic is difficult on its face 
(small, pre-coffee pun.  personnel.  face.  sorry.) and that's made 
/much/ worse by potentially messy legal exposures that accompany 
personnel actions of this type.

In the our case it's made especially more challenging due to the IETF's 
intent and reality of massive diversity combined with high turnover; we 
have a large percentage of new, not-yet-acculturated folk all the time. 
  Behavior that is far out of bounds to one group is entirely within 
bounds to another.  There's no indication that this policy text has been 
vetted with HR or legal experts or that the diversity aspect has been 
considered significantly.

Rather than being pursued with due consideration, the handling of this 
topic has been explicitly rushed.  So while the folks who have worked on 
this sought to be diligent and have put serious energy into making the 
text workable, it's almost certainly too narrow a set of skills that 
were applied, and not enough consideration for application of the policy.

The concerns I've raised have not been to push against proceeding with a 
policy but to press for making it both meaningful to the community that 
must conform to it and robust against attack.

To stress this:  I'm delighted the IESG has taken the initiative.  The 
recent examples I have heard of behaviors that qualify as massively 
inappropriate are appalling.  As another IETFer asked, were these people 
raised by wolves?

However I simply don't see the organizational rules or history that give 
the IESG the authority to impose such a policy by fiat.  And having a 
long and impressive list of folk issue a post-hoc statement of support 
for the action does not really deal with the underlying concern.

A constructive response to the challenge "I believe there is no 
authority to do this" is not a chorus of voices saying "yes there is".

It is one voice that provides the clear and compelling explanation of 
the basis for the authority, sufficient to withstand an eventual legal 
attack.

d/

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:43:40 -0500

> We are writing to thank the IESG and others who were involved for establishing
> an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. We support the policy, the IESG's
> authority to issue such a policy, and the creation of the ombudsperson role.
> Having a confidant with whom to discuss harassment will be most welcome and it
> is our hope that by establishing this policy, incidents of harassment at IETF
> meetings will be reduced in the future.

Another +1

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:00:18 -0800

> actions we can take has no business having a "higher-level HR

I think it's merely a symptom of the fact that I haven't thought about it
long enough, and just compared it to my related experiences.  In
particular, it seems strange to have, say, a team of technical leads
creating HR functions when there are higher management layers likely more
skilled (or enabled) to do so, but I admit that's basically a direct
comparison to my own work environments, which are nothing like the IETF's
structure.

In that only-slightly-grey experience, I've also observed that our major
process statements, including discipline procedures, appear primarily in
BCPs and not IESG edicts.  Some IESG statements are clarifications of those
BCPs, but I couldn't find one that establishes an entirely new HR-like
function.  That's part of the dissonance that caused me to post.

I can't now think of a better body to make such a declaration, other than
the full consensus process by which BCPs are minted.

> IESG (or other body) accountability to the community for the

That also seems to suggest to me that a BCP ought to be the end-state of
this effort.  I'd be happy to contribute to working on such a thing.

-MSK

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:31:59 +0000

Let's hope that incidents of harassment at IETF meetings are not just
reduced
but actually become zero. And if this policy is responsible for that then
it's
great.

  Dan.

On 11/4/13 5:14 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>establishing an anti-harassment policy for the IETF. We support the
>policy, the IESG's authority to issue such a policy, and the creation of
>the ombudsperson role. Having a confidant with whom to discuss harassment
>will be most welcome and it is our hope that by establishing this policy,
>>anti-harassment policy for the IETF. I would like to thank everyone for
>>feedback. We have today adopted an IESG Statement on the matter as
>>follows:
>> 
>> In the near future we will proceed to select and train ombudsperson(s)
>>as confidential initial contact points for situations where there is a
>>concern. In the meantime, Linda Klieforth from ISOC HR department is
>>attending IETF-88 in Vancouver. She has kindly promised to act as a
>>temporary ombudsperson during the meeting, should concerns arise. She
>>can be reached at [email-masked]. Thank you, Linda!
>>

---

From: Paul M <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 05:40:12 -0800

+1

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 07:09:54 +1300

On 06/11/2013 05:00, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>  In
> skilled (or enabled) to do so, 

What do you mean? There is no higher management layer than the IESG,
except the IETF community as a whole.

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:31:17 -0500

--On Tuesday, 05 November, 2013 08:00 -0800 "Murray S.
Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> That also seems to suggest to me that a BCP ought to be the
> end-state of this effort.  I'd be happy to contribute to
> working on such a thing.

The IESG can speak for themselves, but my sense is that there is
some feeling that we aren't ready for anything as formal and
permanent-looking as a BCP.  As Dave points out, that hypothesis
might be either true or false, but, if one believes it to be
true, then the question is what to do next/instead... especially
given the additional hypothesis that we have a problem and that
something needs to be done sooner rather than later.

What I'm feeling for is a model on which, if the IESG considers
it appropriate and is willing to explain why, we can get
something soon, with wide and careful community review at an
appropriate time, so the choice isn't "BCP or nothin" or
"nothing any time soon".

    john

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:36:21 -0800

> except the IETF community as a whole.

I think that's exactly what I mean.