Comments in line.
On 3/2/18 2:28 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 3/2/18 1:09 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I would note that for transparency, when our leadership is performing
their roles as leaders, they ahve to expect to be photographed. That
includes at least the IAB, the IESG, and our WG Chairs.
I also think that photographing presenters is something we should
allow as expected behavior (without harassing the presenter or
disrupting the presentation.)
Do you have an issue with a statement of: "Specifically, photographs of
panels and the like (e.g., the IESG/IAB plenary) are expected to contain
all individuals regardless of labelling"?
While there is nothing wrong with that statement, I do not think it goes
far enough. It is not just "panels".
I would want to be clear that as far as official actions, while we
will endevour to respect preferences, mistakes will sometimes be
made. And they may not be detectable afterwards (if the picture does
not include the badge.) We should be careful not to create an
expectation that we will do the impossible.
Would you be okay addressing this with language of the form "it is a
best effort service and some mistakes will likely be made, perhaps
because someone's label is not noticed or visible. Individuals can
contact XXX to arrange for redaction of their images, or YYY to report
abuse"?
I might want to be more specific that we will attempt to provide
redaction (i.e. not committing to what may prove intractable or
inappropriate depending upon the details.) With that caveat, yes,
something along those lines would help.
/a
