Subject: [Gen-art] Last Call Review of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:43:54 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 2015/02/02
IETF LC End Date:2015/02/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This document is ready to go with minor editorial issues.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

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.

Reference URIs [1] and [2] are identical. Should one be removed?

Presumably the Ombudsteam web site will be set up upon approval of this 
document -- it does not exist at the moment.

Section 4.1, first paragraph, fourth line: s/objection/objections/

---

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

Tom,

Thanks for the review....

> constituted and under which they would operate. This document remedies

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."

The Introduction has "this document sets forth procedures to deal with such harassing behavior" and I think the breadth of that statement covers what is in this document.

> Reference URIs [1] and [2] are identical. Should one be removed?

It's a feature of xml2rfc that we cannot fathom!
The RFC Editor will have to resolve it.

> document -- it does not exist at the moment.

Yes. And he email address, I think.
Another thankless task for Jari.

> Section 4.1, first paragraph, fourth line: s/objection/objections/

Thanks.

Adrian

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:54:17 -0500

> 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.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:20:42 +0800

Thanks for the review, Tom.

FWIW, I agree with Adrian’s responses.

Jari