I guess this matter is closed based on Jari's response of 17/02/2015 (my
time). You can mark it off, Jean.
Tom Taylor
On 16/02/2015 8:54 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
On 16/02/2015 2:11 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for the review....
Nits/editorial comments:
The Ombudsteam is taken for granted from Section 2 onwards. It would be
nice to mention in the Introduction that the IESG mentioned
Ombudspersons in its statement of anti-harassment policy [1], but did
not define the procedures under which the Ombudsteam would be
constituted and under which they would operate. This document remedies
that lack.
It is my opinion that this document is not intended to build upon [1]
so much as to address the whole situation.
It doesn't feel right to me to pick out this specific item, when (in
fact) [1] does little more than say that "harassment is something up
with which we will not put."
[PTT] Fair enough, but I still think you need somehow to introduce the
Ombudsteam. The term just shows up as if everyone knew about it.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
