--On Sunday, March 4, 2018 19:33 -0500 Ted Lemon
<mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2018, at 1:43 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I think that you have some reason that you haven't stated for
> your preference here, John. It might be worth stopping for a
> moment and trying to feel your way into what is actually
> motivating you to continue arguing here. You have not said
> anything that in any way suggests to me that there is a
> problem with the policy. I literally do not see any reason,
> based on what you are saying here, for you to object to the
> policy. If you think you have stated such a reason, you have
> done so in such a subtle way that I can't find it.
Ted,
I am opposed, so far, to this for three reasons that are almost
unrelated to each other but that tend to reinforce each other.
In almost no particular order:
(1) I think the proposed policy conflates advice/instructions to
anyone taking pictures in an official capacity with advice to
people taking pictures without an official picture-taking role.
I believe that first is best dealt with as a contractual matter
and is hence an IAOC issue, not an IESG one. The second is
partially a matter of guidance and partially a matter of
clarifying that behavior that intrudes on the legitimate
preferences of others or that is significantly repeated, overtly
obnoxious, or both. The latter, if it needs anything we don't
have today, simply requires a clarification to anti-harassment
policies that puts unwanted photography on the list of examples
and unacceptable behavior. If that were done, then, if the IESG
needs to do anything at all that is unique to photography in
particular, it is to designate a way for people who don't want
to be photographed (or who do; I still prefer opt-in) to
announce that.
If the IESG is going to do that, I'd prefer that the
announcement mechanism, or at least the framework for such a
mechanism, be generalized because I have no reason to believe
that, medium-term, photography is the only issue or privacy is
the only concern that might drive such issues.
(2) I have a concern that is at least similar to Bob Hinden's
and which I've tried to explain more than once. I believe that,
as a standards-developing organization, the IETF has a very
strong obligation for openness and transparency, specifically
including the ability to identify participants. Comparisons
between the IETF and bodies that do not have that obligation,
especially comparisons that suggest that they have made
provisions like this and therefore we should to, seem to me to
be making Apples and Oranges comparisons and hence to be
completely unpersuasive. I'm ok with a prohibition on
photography (generally or for those who prefer to not be
photographed) as long as it comes with strong safeguards to
prevent anyone from using a mechanism to avoid being
photographed as a means of achieving anonymity or even forcing
people to go to extra effort to identify them. To those ends,
the policy would be somewhat more palatable to me if it included
a statement similar to the one that Joel has been asking for
about ADs, WG Chairs, etc., whether they are sitting on panels
when the picture is taken on not, and believe it should also
include anyone making a presentation or speaking at a microphone
while they are doing those things. The purpose there is not
just to avoid anonymity, it is to make sure that people with
more decision-making authority than the average participant are
easily identified by whatever reasonable means a participant
finds convenient (including picture galleries). For others,
maybe if we don't want to be photographed, we need to wear a
badge with our names on them in much larger-than-usual letters
that cannot easily be turned over or obscured. The problem I
have with this issue is that the topic of avoiding accidental or
deliberate anonymity in Contributions or other
standards-influencing or standards-making does not seem to have
gotten serious consideration that was reflected in the policy.
Until that is done, I'm very reluctant to see a policy.
(3) Independent of the above but reinforcing both, I just don't
like seeing the IESG (or the IAOC or the IETF more generally)
running to make policies as, apparently, the first reaction when
apparent new issues come up. We usually manage to demonstrate
that few IETF participants have the background or experience to
make good policies in areas that have significant social or
legal implications, especially when there are "hot button"
topics involved (or issues that can be inflated into such
topics). We often demonstrate that being selected as a member
of key leadership bodies does not convey that background or
experience and, perhaps with the exception of IAOC slots, that
those are not high on the list of the characteristics for which
Nomcoms are expected to select. Even the discussion about such
proposed policies has a bad effect by (it seems almost
inevitably) flooding the IETF list with comments, discouraging
people with a more narrow technical focus and/or less time from
staying on the list.
Then we don't get these policy attempts quite right, leading to
the need for hairsplitting and/or clarifications and policies
about the policies and more interminable and costly debate. I
don't think we want to end up with a thick virtual rulebook that
people are not sure how to navigate and that causes company
attorneys concern about whether the exposure it implies makes
supporting or allowing IETF participation worth the trouble.
Every new policy we invent moves that outcome closer. It has
been claimed that this is not really a policy like that because
it is just a guideline for those of us who are no "official",
but, as I've said before, the "official" photographers should be
handled by the IAD and IAOC and, if the rest of this is just
about guidance, package it that way. And, if it needs to be
added to the policy collection, I think there should be far
stronger justification that starts from the assumption that
policies more specific than "behave like a considerate adult"
are a priori dangerous and costly and therefore need more
justification than "the IESG has seen a problem or heard
complaints or seen other organizations doing things like this".
I hope that answers your question.
best,
john
