--On Thursday, March 1, 2018 20:01 -0800 Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi folks, > > The IESG has heard some concerns from participants that they > would like not to be photographed. In response to those > concerns, we have developed the attached policy which we > intend to put in place going forward. > > Please send any comments by 3/8/2018. Ekr, One of the first instances of complaints about photography I can remember occurred when, as a WG Co-Chair, I asked for a show of hands for volunteers to read and review a particular document and then took photos of the room to record who had their hands up. The request for hands was made because the WG had encountered difficulties getting adequate reviews in the past and, IIR, the particular request involved a WG Last Call. And the photos were taken because it took less time and was less intrusive than walking around the room and writing down names. I heard (from a _very_ small number of people, including some who did not object to being photographed but who felt a need to defend those who might), three kinds of objections: to being recorded with their hands up, to being recorded with their hands down, and to being recorded at all or to being in the room at all. Noting that, at least as far as I know, there is no "right" to not be recorded on Blue Sheets and that participating in a discussions and then claiming to not have been present could be a grave violation of our IPR rules, at least the third strikes me as dubious. Personally, I reached two other conclusions. The first was that, if I wanted to use that technique again, I would announce that I was going to ask questions of that type and use photography to record results and that people who did not want to be recorded should leave the room. Of course, that could have bad consequences too -- someone could presumable appeal any conclusions reached, such as a decision to go forward with WGLC or to wait for an extended mailing list poll on that question (one that would be even less anonymous than raising hands and being photographed), on the grounds that they were unfairly excluded from the volunteering exercise, observing it, or standing at the side of the room and glaring at people who raised their hands. I'd expect such an appeal to come to nothing, but it would waste time. The second conclusion was that, if chairing a WG involved dealing with those sorts of discussions, it was going to be a lot harder to convince me to chair a WG in the future. In my case, some would probably consider that conclusion a feature but, in the more general one, the IESG doesn't need to add to the burdens of being a WG Chair enough to prevent people from volunteering unless the issue or constraint is _really_ important. Reading the policy draft, I note that I would have had another option without asking permission from anyone. That would have been to tip off the Meetecho team that I intended to ask the question and then persuade them to slowly pan the camera across the room after hands went up. That would not only provide pictures of hands up (or down) but would guarantee public availability of those pictures. So... (1) I think trying to generate a specific policy in this area is a bad idea unless there is a demonstrated and specific need for it. Part of the reason is that we have too many rules, part is that we have a lot of trouble getting these things right and often end up with edge cases that then require either more rules or more rule-making by appeals (although your discussion of "should" helps in that regard, experience suggests it doesn't help much). (2) Everyone participating in the IETF should remember that the IETF's credibility, and the credibility of its standards, depends on a general view that the process is open and transparent. That means openness and transparency about who is participating and what positions they are taking, not just about what is being said. Someone who doesn't want to be photographed (or recorded on video) has the option of participating remotely and leaving their own video off so that they are represented only by disembodied voices. I suppose it would be up to the IESG to decide whether it would be acceptable for in-person participants to wear bags over their heads (or cartoon masks of one sort or another) as a way to both signal their desire to not have their faces in photographs and to prevent that, even from private actors. (3) If you are going to make rules in this area, it may be appropriate to distinguish between WG sessions at one extreme and social events at another. I can think of a lot more justification for someone not wanting to be photographed at a social event than in a WG session... and far less downside to the community. Similar comments would apply to Donald Duck masks. (4) I wonder if it wouldn't be sufficient to simply extend our rules about treating other people professionally and courteously by pointing out that some people don't like being photographed and that the IETF expects those requests to be respected... and then making appropriate badges or beanies available. That would at least avoid getting tangled up with more rules and debates about edge cases. What any "official" photographers do would, of course, be something that could be discussed with them as a contractual matter (or in the context of whatever makes them official). best, john
