Subject: RE: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:11:30 -0000

Hi James,

Belated reply.

> It occurs to me that the Lead Ombudsperson has a variety of
> functions related to the application of remedies, and the draft
> doesn't clearly indicate what happens when the term of service
> ends for a Lead Ombudsperson with unresolved cases.

Agreed, and adding a few words.

> Consider the case where a Reporter informs the Lead Ombudsperson
> they believe another Ombudsperson should recuse themselves, then
> later, before the case is resolved, that Lead Ombudsperson is removed
> from the Ombudsteam. If that scenario happened to me, then I'd very 
> much want to be consulted in the selection of a replacement for the
> Lead Ombudsperson for my case.

I think we have this in Section 4, and combined with the fix to your previous point we have it covered.

Many thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:26 -0800

Since there is some activity concerning the draft...

The draft should add guidance -- and possibly requirement -- for an
active, ongoing process of oversight, that seeks to assess and improve
harassment-related mechanisms in the IETF.

In particular:

   0)  Do we have a basis for knowing that IETF participants are aware
of harassment-related remedies that are available?

   1)  Do we have a basis for believing that these remedies are
perceived as real and useful?

   2)  If someone is harassed, how do we know they received helpful
assistance?  (In other words, do we have a basis for 'knowing' that the
remedies are real and useful?_

   3)  Do we have a way of assessing whether patterns of harassment show
improvement (less harassment)?

Simply put:  We need to run this as a closed-loop, on-going,
incrementally-improving system.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net