--On Sunday, March 4, 2018 09:33 -0800 Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Bob Hinden > <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? Bob's reasoning may be different, but I do have a specific reason and have tried to explain it earlier so I feel like I'm repeating myself too. AFAICT, the other communities that have been cited are holding technical or social meetings or the equivalent. They are not trying to set standards whose consequences may include some actors "winning" and others "losing" and doing so in which a variety of interests and perspectives have to be balanced. Precisely because we presume to be an SDO producing voluntary, industry-consensus, standards, we have obligations (at least moral and potentially legal), not just to broad concepts like openness and transparency but to be able to rather specifically identify who (and with what affiliations) is influencing decisions about standards. Now, to use an extreme example, if someone wants to sit in a WG meeting with a bag over his or her head and never say anything or even hum or demonstrate enthusiasm or distaste through body language, I don't care if they can opt out from begin photographed (with or without the bag). I don't care if they sign the blue sheets either. But as soon as they start making Contributions or engage in any other contacts or behavior that could influence decisions in the standards process, I believe that the community's interest in being able to identify who or what participated in those decisions and how becomes important, important enough to counter the assumption that personal preferences or needs for privacy should be paramount. I can see ways to satisfy that community requirement without taking pictures of people, but they would imply either a "no photographs at all" policy or that just about anyone who did not want to be photographed take special measures to ensure that they could be readily identified at all times. But the rules that would be required are complex and, like others, I have a problem with the IETF adopting complex, hair-splitting rules about much of anything unless there is compelling proof that they are actually needed. best, john
