John, > On 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. My reasoning is similar to yours. Bob > > 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 > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
