I certainly have sympathy for people who get a camera shoved in their
face even when they tell the photographer to stop, but this seems
to be getting awfully overcomplex in the traditional IETF manner.
Given that a substantial number of conferences have already adopted policies
that are congruent with (or more stringent than) the one being proposed, can
you clarify how this is "overcomplex in the traditional IETF manner" rather
than "catching up to everyone else, albeit somewhat belatedly"?
If it turns out we want a no photography at all policy, or only the
contracted photographer, that would be OK. And a no photography if people
tell you to stop rule is overdue.
But I'm seeing complex branching tree proposals about who's allowed to
object to photgraphy in what contexts, how it's supposed to be signalled,
and what to do about it. I'm on the IAOC. If I have a no-photo lanyard
or no lanyard (I'm an old nerd with shirt pockets to which one can clip a
badge) what happens to the plenary video? Is it OK to pixellate me or do
I have to be completely blacked out, or do we not publish that section of
the video, or am I on the no-no-photo list or what? These are not
questions that I think it's productive to explore.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
