Thanks, Joe The text from Eric does not mention intimidation. As said before, i read it as referring to primarily the rights to ones own pictures. See Dirks pointer to the laws in Germany, so i am of course also highly sensitized on that (see also my comments on CCC). Those pricacy rights where also my concern with IETF being what i thought to be a mostly public space and me and others who chimed in having/wanting to take pictures for efficient work in the face of crowds where we can't eliminate the possibility of capture faces of folks we couldn't ask all upfront for approval (my last experience photographing demos at bits & bytes). But of course, i would never publish such pictures, or else blacken faces. On behalf of my other question, i have now heard from you and others on the thread that there was a good amount of complaints re. intimidation, so i will take its existance for granted now. I have heard no example of those complaints being taken back by e.g.: ombutsteam to those photographers - protecting those that where intimidated. If that was not tried and failed, i just kindly continue suggest to try that first before coming up with more written policies. If the only thing the ombutsteam could say is "We tried, it failed", i am happy to accept that. But thats just the simple due diligence i would have expected as the intro text to any such policy. And include the word intimidation into a text about intimidation. Helps! It might also make sense to more clearly separate discussion & rules for folks in official capacities vs. general participants. > Ask yourself if you're arguing on the pro-intimidation side, please? I encourage the IETF to intimidate with innovative work result! Sorry, was that a serious question ? Seriously: It should be easy to get rid of this type of intimidation, i am mostly surprised it would need written rules. But at the heart of IETF i don't think we can ever get rid of intimidation: Long time SME will continue to intimidate newcomers, and that problem can only be partially mitigated through behavioral enhancements on both sides. Cheers toerless On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 11:16:12AM -0700, Joe Hildebrand 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. > > > ??? > Joe Hildebrand > (no hats)
