Re: Proposed Photography Policy

[Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Joe,

Thanks for providing some more context.  But, why can't the problem be handled by someone asking the person/people that have a tendency to get in people's faces, to please stop doing that?   

I guess I’m looking at the whole issue slightly differently….

Having guidelines allows that conversation to scale, so every possible pair of (“person with camera”/“person with a preference about being photographed”) doesn’t have to have the same conversation, possibly more than once.

The way we avoid that problem now is to have a default set. It’s the wrong default for some people and situations, but it takes effort to reset, and the required effort isn’t always as trivial as a quiet “Please stop that.” For some people, the effort comes with real discomfort; for others, it’s just a distraction.

Doesn’t enabling people to signal their own preferences more efficiently save work for everyone?

Or has been noted elsewhere, those that are really feeling *physically* intimidated should talk to the ombudsperson.  Why do we need some sort of special designation for this specific behavior that is intimidating?  If someone is afraid to talk to the ombudsperson, then that's another problem.  The points you bring up which are valid apply to an awful lot of negative behaviors in this organization (e.g., worrying about the consequences of highly-placed, people, etc.).  

See above: a way to signal that I find that specific behavior intimidating and would prefer not to be the object of that behavior saves everyone who wants to be polite some work (on both sides of the camera), and makes it easier to identify those who don’t.

Note we have guidance for some other behavior that may or may not be rude or intimidating, depending on the situation, such as mailing list behavior. I guess I see a protocol that provides guidance for people trying to behave acceptably regarding photography at IETF meetings as really not so different to a protocol that provides guidance for people trying to behave acceptably on mailing lists.

(NB: I don’t mind being photographed at an IETF meeting, and as a WG chair and IAB member I couldn’t easily avoid it anyway. But I empathize with those who feel differently, because in other venues I don’t always feel the same way either— it depends on the proverbial “time, place, and manner.”) 

Suzanne

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If a photographer is not respecting their wishes, they still
>> have to decide to raise it as an issue with the ombudsfolks.
>
> Great point. Didn't think of the ombudsman when i asked about the
> current collection of complaints to justify the need for a written
> policy. Maybe one of them will chime in and enlighten us.

It may be that they can do that within the bounds of their ethical guidelines.  In case they can't, let me speak a little bit about the complaints that I have received in my time on the IAB -- not because this was an IAB issue, or because I was the right person to talk to necessarily, but because I happened to be in the right place at the right time wearing a dot.  I am NOT speaking on behalf of the IAB here, just for myself.

Several people feel *physically* intimidated by having a camera shoved in their face repeatedly, then having pictures of them posted through unofficial channels.  Where it is clear that particular sorts of people figure prominently in those channels.

Those people don't feel empowered to speak up because they fear this EXACT conversation.  They expect that they will be told that they should toughen up, that things have always been this way, that they shouldn't feel the way they feel.  They feel like their business opportunities will dry up if they talk about how scared they are.  They are unwilling to participate more at the IETF because of these concerns.

Those of us who don't have those concerns because we're not the target of physical intimidation, feel empowered to fight back against it, and don't mind the consequences of people that are highly-placed in the industry thinking of as whiners should take a breath and think about our responsibility to the future.

Ask yourself if you're arguing on the pro-intimidation side, please?

—
Joe Hildebrand
(no hats)