Re: Proposed Photography Policy

[Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--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.

With regard to the specific question of whether people are readily identifiable,

I'd observe that pretty much all the indicators that people discuss using are

in some way attached to name badges, so this seems like it's likely to be a

non-problem in practice.

However, on the larger topic of openness and transparency, I'm having trouble

of thinking of any instance where it has been necessary to photograph a

participant in order to identify them. People either wear badges or say their

name or, you can just ask the person sitting next to you who they are. Moreover,

as has been commonly observed, we routinely allow contributions from people

who are identifiable only by email address and (claimed) personal name.

Is there any compelling proof that photography is in fact necessary to

identify IETF participants?

To rephrase this a bit: s/necessary to identity/an important mechanism for identitying/

-Ekr

best,
  john