--On Friday, March 2, 2018 11:16 -0700 Joe Hildebrand
<hildjj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
Joe,
FWIW, I would (and do) consider having a camera (especially one
with a flash) shoved in my face repeatedly (with emphasis on
"repeatedly") as a pattern of harassment whether I find it
physically intimidating or not and whether I follow through on
the temptation to punch the photographer out or not. Perhaps it
is not even relevant that it is camera: having someone shove
another object in my face (especially repeatedly) unwelcome too.
So, if that is the problem we are trying to solve, then what is
needed is a short clarification to the anti-harassment policy
that says that, yes, shoving things, e.g., cameras, in people's
faces is rude if done once (and we discourage "rude") and
harassment if done repeatedly. A lengthy new policy is not
needed.
Interestingly, the "camera in face" argument has another
corollary. If someone really does not want to be photographed
and the IETF wants to support that desire, then having a picture
taken unobtrusively (e.g., no flash, from a distance, and with a
high-magnification lens) so that the subject doesn't find about
about the photo at the time it is taken, is fully as obnoxious
as taking the photo with the camera in someone's face. Then we
face a question that the policy doesn't seem to address, which
is whether the possibly-offensive act is taking the photograph
or about how it is used or where it is posted.
> 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.
It is interesting that you have been told that, because I think
I've read the entire thread so far and did not hear the "toughen
up" argument prior to your posting. However, if the above is
the issue, then asking those people who are significantly
uncomfortable to single themselves out and invite others to
speculate on why they have a problem is itself undesirable and,
as others have suggested, we should have a default "no pictures"
policy and an opt-in policy or equivalent as Adrian and others
have suggested.
> 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?
See Mike St. Johns's note, which is far more eloquent about that
sort of question than I can manage.
I'm arguing something else, some of which are definitely less
pro-intimidation than this proposed policy, as written, seems to
be.
(1) The more process-bound and rule-complex we make the IETF,
the more difficult it becomes for us to work together as
colleagues with a common focus on making the Internet work
better. In addition, I've been told that it has been getting
harder to get a wide range of organizations to support IETF
participation by their employees. To the extent to which that
is true, giving corporate legal departments reason for concern
that there are too many rules that cannot be easily and clearly
followed in interpreted is just not a good idea.
(2) In part because it sets industry standards that influence
the marketplace, the IETF has some very strong obligations about
openness and transparency, obligations that need to be balanced
against the desire of individuals to not be identified (whether
by lists of attendees, pictures, or otherwise).
(3) Personally, I don't like being photographed and have not for
a rather long time. I'd happily grab a sign, hat, badge, or
banner that said so. Whether I had some specific problems in
the past or whether this is just a matter of taste is, quite
frankly, not any of the IETF's business. So I actually support
a photography policy that allows me to restrict pictures; I just
think this one is misguided.
(4) It seems to me that there are actually two separate issues
here. One has to do with the behavior of "official"
photographers engaged to documenting the IETF, the other with
behavior of individual participants or hangers-on. If a policy
is needed for the first group, I suggest it should be a
contractual matter between the photographer and the IASA even
though the community should be allowed to review and provide
into into that policy. If that IESG needs to be involved other
than providing into to IASA about such a policy, I think it is a
problem in and over itself. I also suggest that the first
step in developing such a policy is an explanation from the IAOC
to the community about why such photographers are needed at all
and why they are worth the costs -- not just of paying them, but
of sorting out policies if their actions cause controversies.
(5) As others have suggested, what is needed for the rest of us
taking pictures of each other is probably more guidance and
education, not more policies, especially ones that we know
cannot be enforced (at least in isolation). The observations
above about harassment are relevant to this.
john
