Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 34: Do we need to update Anti-Harrassment policy and WG procedures to make them applicable to WG?

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:33:38 -0600

On 5/19/21 1:11 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 16:53, Eliot Lear wrote:

<snip/>

>>  * If we go for the easiest path (reusing the IETF process in its 
>> entirety) and get it wrong, what’s the consequence?  Could we just fix 
>> it later?
> 
> The main consequence is likely to be a good one: we get a well-tested policy and processes.  And if issues are found, the IETF is more likely to be the ones to find them and fix them.  But I guess if we find some way in which the process fails, that is just a tiny facet of the existing problem we have all acknowledged as being hard: that is, what do we do if we find this RSWG business isn't working out?

As Lars pointed out [1] in the GitHub issue:

  Do we really need to do all this work on BCP25? I'll note that for
  example the IRTF has no issue to simply say "these IETF rules also
  apply to us" without the respective IETF rules needing an update to
  (also) say that.

The web page [2] about IRTF policies simply states:

  The IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the IRTF. The IRTF
  strives to create and maintain an environment in which people of many
  different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
  Participants are expected to behave according to professional
  standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. See also
  RFC 7776 and RFC 8716.

Perhaps this is an acceptable starting point for the RSWG, too.

Peter

[1]
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/34#issuecomment-839752316

[2] https://irtf.org/policies/

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:39:04 -0400

The difficulty I see is that if someone wants to report a problem with 
the RSWG (much as we all hope that will not happen), who do they report 
to?  The Obmudsteam?  Even if the IESG and Ombudsteam agree to taht, 
what happens if it needs further escalation?

The fact that the IRTF has gotten lucky enough not to explore these 
messes does not mean we should ignore them.  At least in their case, one 
might well asume the IRSG and IRTF chair fill the needed roles, and that 
the IESG / Obmudsteam have tactily agreed to the delegation.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:48:27 -0600

On 6/13/21 12:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> to?  

One possibility is the same entity to which process appeals are made.
For the RSWG, we are thinking that's the RSAB. For the RSAB, it's yet to
be determined.

Peter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 15:29:49 -0400

My primary concern is that we specify the answer.  Thus, the wording 
from the IRTF while useful is insufficient.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:32:15 -0600

> from the IRTF while useful is insufficient.

Agreed. That's why I made a concrete suggestion for consideration by the
Program.

Peter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 15:36:39 -0400

I do not have a better answer than the RSAB for where the process would 
point, so assuming the IESG / ambudsteam are willing to be pointed to, I 
can live with that.  And given that, saying the process from there goes 
to wherever we say other appeals from the RSAB go seems to make ssense.

Yours,
Joel