I think on the first report, how far this needs to go depends on the person who was harassed. It’s ok not to require a public apology and it’s ok not to want the accused to lose their job (although it’s also ok to want the opposite!).
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board. Personally I think he should have also apologized publicly (like he now did), but I find this less important.
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board.
I agree this definitely has to happen if Julia became aware of more cases through further complaints or through an investigation unearthing other things that are at least 50% as bad as the incident described by Owen.
However, if these “other cases” were just Owen going through his memory of any similar interactions and applying what he learned from the staying-at-his-house incident and then scrupulously listing every interaction where, in retrospect, he cannot be 100% confident that he didn’t make someone uncomfortable (and regrets the way he expressed interest), then it’s a bit different. (In that case, removing him from the board doesn’t seem mandatory to me, but I also don’t find it unreasonable.)
Edit: And this seems like the interpretation you’d arrive at if you believe Owen’s account. I’m quoting it here for context:
Was this incident an isolated case? Yes and no. I think this was by some way my most egregious mistake of this type. However, in my time in EA there have been four other occasions on which I expressed feelings of attraction towards someone in a way that — in retrospect as I’ve developed a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics — I regret. (In most of these cases I’m still on very good terms with the person.) I’ve slowly been improving my implicit models (so I never quite make the same mistake twice), but honestly it’s gone more slowly than I think it should have done.
If you believe this account is accurate, then that’s quite different from what a reader unfamiliar with this info would infer from “after Wise became aware of more cases.”
I think on the first report, how far this needs to go depends on the person who was harassed. It’s ok not to require a public apology and it’s ok not to want the accused to lose their job (although it’s also ok to want the opposite!).
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board. Personally I think he should have also apologized publicly (like he now did), but I find this less important.
I agree this definitely has to happen if Julia became aware of more cases through further complaints or through an investigation unearthing other things that are at least 50% as bad as the incident described by Owen.
However, if these “other cases” were just Owen going through his memory of any similar interactions and applying what he learned from the staying-at-his-house incident and then scrupulously listing every interaction where, in retrospect, he cannot be 100% confident that he didn’t make someone uncomfortable (and regrets the way he expressed interest), then it’s a bit different. (In that case, removing him from the board doesn’t seem mandatory to me, but I also don’t find it unreasonable.)
Edit: And this seems like the interpretation you’d arrive at if you believe Owen’s account. I’m quoting it here for context:
If you believe this account is accurate, then that’s quite different from what a reader unfamiliar with this info would infer from “after Wise became aware of more cases.”