Given that both the proposals I made are already in the draft policy, I
recommend that you make specific text suggestions for improving them.
/a
On 3/2/18 1:32 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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
