Has there been thought to how practical this actually would be for us to
implement?
The experiment with ribbons at the last meeting was, in my view a dismal
failure. A few folks had one ribbon. That might have helped with
identifying those folks.
But then I started seeing people with 2, 3, or four ribbons. Plus
unofficial ribbons. Once that started happening, I simply ignored the
ribbons as being too hard to make sense of. They became worse than the
dots instead of better. (And, lanyards probably are marginal also.
Folks do bring their own for many reasons. Bringing us back to "what
does that color mean"?)
Separately, I wonder if this policy would be easier to understand if the
presentation were inverted:
1) Some folks would prefer not to be photographed
2) We ask folks to respect that
3) To simplify respecting it, we will (assuming there is a practical way
to do so) enable folks to indicate such preference.
4) As an organization, we will endeavor to respect that preference
4.1) We will still take official video, with no redaction
4.2) what we will ask our official photographers to do...
4.3) other exceptions
Then the policy would flow. Assuming we can find a practical way to
provide the indication.
I would still ask that part of the exceptions include our leadership
while they are performing their jobs.
I note that one use of photography at meetings is for participants to
take photos of presentations, to review the material later. Likely with
colleagues. Do we really expect them to remove the presenter from such
photos?
Yours,
Joel
On 3/4/18 12:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am also not sure if a policy like this can be effectively
implemented. I worry that some might see the "do-not-photograph”
label as the opposite of what it is intended to mean.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but a number of other communities have
implemented these policies and found they work well (by which I meant
that people generally conform and it's not that hard to deal with people
who don't). So, at this point I think general skepticism is a bit
misplaced. Do you have some specific reason for believing that the IETF
will be different?
I infer that some who asked for this see having their picture taken
as a form harassment. Harassment is clearly unacceptable in the
IETF, but if that is the case here, I think it would be better to
deal directly with it as harassment. I believe we already have a
policy relating to harassment.
I'm not sure I can add anything to what others have already said, but
I'll try anyway. There are people who prefer not to be photographed but
feel uncomfortable if they have to directly ask every person who might
potentially photograph them not do so so. I think Alissa said this
explicitly in her note. These aren't cases of harassment but of giving
people who have that preference a way to signal that and establishing
the norm that people will respect that preference. Now, if someone
deliberately ignores others preferences, then at some point it might
rise to the level of harassment, and as you say, we should deal with
that directly, and that's a matter for the ombudsteam, which is what the
policy says.
-Ekr
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ekr@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> The IESG has heard some concerns from participants that they
would like
> not to be photographed. In response to those concerns, we have
developed
> the attached policy which we intend to put in place going forward.
>
> Please send any comments by 3/8/2018.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> -----
> The intent behind this policy is to balance people's legitimate
desire
> not to be photographed with the IETF's ability to document activities
> and enable remote participation. In order to enable that, we are
> proposing the following policy which applies to all IETF events,
> including WG meetings, plenaries, and the hackathon.
>
> LABELLING
> The IETF will make available a mechanism for participants to label
> themselves as desiring not to be photographed. The secretariat will
> determine the details in consultation with the IESG.
>
> OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
> Any photographer engaged on behalf of the IETF should not
photograph individuals
> displaying the "do-not-photograph" label, should make reasonable
> efforts to avoid photographing small groups with one or more members
> displaying the label, and should not publish small group photographs
> with such individuals in them. Photographs of large groups may
contain
> incidental images of such individuals and we will not attempt to
> redact those. Specifically, photographs of panels and the like (e.g.,
> the IESG/IAB plenary) are expected to contain all individuals
> regardless of labelling.
>
> Working group meetings are generally video recorded and
broadcast, and
> no attempt will be made to avoid recording individuals. However, if
> the IETF publishes still frames of these videos, individuals
> displaying the labels should not be shown.
>
> Note: the use of "should" above is intended to reflect that although
> this is IETF policy, 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.
>
>
> UNOFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
> Many IETF participants also engage in photography. We ask that those
> participants respect the above policies and avoid photographing
> individuals who have asked not to be photographed. Although we
> recognize that mistakes will be made, repeated intentional violations
> of this policy may constitute harassment and could be brought to
the attention
> of the ombudsteam, per RFC 7776.
>
