Hi Joel,
Yes, we discussed this video issue in the IESG before we wrote the policy. I think there are three relevant differences:
1. Video actually is important to our operations both for documenting the meeting and to allow remote participation.
2. The actual act of videography the way we do it is fairly unobtrusive to the subject, by contrast to still photography, which can be intrusive even if the photos are never published [0]
3. The video that we take is actually pretty hard to work with to find a specific point, as anyone who has tried to work with the archives to get clarity on the minutes knows.
So, yes, this line is a bit fuzzier than I would like, but I think for the reasons above, this is about the right place to draw it.
Best,
-Ekr
[0] Yes someone can really get in your face with a video camera, and I would hope that we would discourage that as well, but that's not what meetecho is like.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So explain to me why we will allow people to prohibit posting of still photos of themselves, but we will not prohibit video of them?
It's not like they can stop others outside our purview from taking stills from the video and re-posting them.
Frankly, given modern technology, the difference between video and still pictures is minuscule. I was trying to stay out of that aspect of this policy. But you have chosen to push it.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/2/18 6:20 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The fundamental driver here is organizational transparency. Our
leaders are accountable to the community.
Yes. That's why we have videography, minutes, etc. We are talking very specifically about published *still* photography.
-Ekr
I am sorry, the image of declaring that the IEtF chair can require
that photographers not talk pictures of the IETF chair when
presenting to the community seems explicitly wrong to me.
Equally, the image of a Working Group chair saying that he or she
can not be photographed while running a working group session seems
completely counter to the transparency and accountability of our
organization.
We do place behavioral expectations and constraints on our
leadership in many ways.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/2/18 6:07 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
One of the aspects that concerns me about the policy is that it
seems to allow our leadership to require that their images be
removed from pictures of them doing their job.
I don't understand the motivation for this proposal, and it has
clear downsides in terms of discouraging participation by people
who wish not to be photographed.
Why should being a leader require you to have your picture
publicly posted? Your appearance isn't any necessary part of the
leadership function.
In case it's not clear, the purpose of the text about panels is,
like the text about large groups, a concession to practicality,
not derived from the notion that leaders inherently have some
diminished right to privacy.
-Ekr
Yes, there is text about panels. But that seems
insufficient. I
would suggest we add:
IETF Leadership (such as IAB members, IESG members, and
Working Group
Chairs) should understand that when they are performing
their formal
duties they may be photographed, and those photographs
may be
displayed in public.
That would be in addition to the existing text about
panels. Thus,
it would cover WG chairs and cases where for example the
IAB Chair
or IETF chair are presenting even without a panel of others.
I will leave it to others as to whether the example lsit of
leadership needs to be more comprehensive. I hope that we
do not
need to be more specific about what we mean by performing their
formal duties.
Yours,
Joel
