On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2018, at 6:41 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:We have an ombudsteam precisely because we really don't want harassment to reach the level of civil suits before being addressed.I’ve already agreed it’s useful to address commercial photography. For everything else, we already have an anti-harassment policy.Providing further details are not, IMO, useful or productive. The people who most need to read it either won’t or already know what they’re doing is harassment.
Well, I'm not sure I want to argue about "most" need to read it, but as a practical matter, in settings where there is no easy mechanism for people to indicate that they don't wish to be photographed, people who would prefer not to be are frequently photographed anyway, including by people who would *like* to respect their wishes, but just don't know. The objective here is to establish an easy, nonconfrontational way for people to indicate their preferences, combined with a norm that other participants respect those preferences. Yes, at the end of the day, if someone flagrantly disregards those preferences, it may be harassment and a matter for the ombudsteam, but in many if not most cases, just having the right norms is sufficient.
Again, we really don't have to theorize here because this isn't a new idea. There are plenty of events (see my message upthread) which have successfully adopted policies of this type, where successfully means that they largely achieved the objectives that the policies were intended to achieve. It's of course totally reasonable to think that those objectives are bad, misguided, etc., but if we want to know how these policies have worked in other communities, there's plenty of experience to draw on.
Besides, if the issue were really about creating a conducive environment, it would be more useful to start with “don’t knock people over to get a cookie at the break”.
I was not aware that this was a problem. Certainly, I think people shouldn't knock people over at the breaks, but ISTM to me that it's covered by the "inappropriate physical contact" clause of the anti-harassment policy. If you think otherwise, perhaps suggest an amendment?
-Ekr
Joe
