--On Monday, March 5, 2018 17:41 +0900 Randy Bush
<randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> does this solve a problem we actually have?
>
> we as ask them to sign an attendance sheet, wear a badge, and
> state their name at the mic. we meed mug shots too? should
> we do iris scans, fingerprints, and dna swabs? where does it
> stop?
First, I don't think the proposed policy solves any problem we
actually have and for which we don't already have solutions. I
think intrusive photography (or any other invasion of personal
space) is an issue of rudeness, serious impoliteness, or
harassment and that, if anything more is needed, it is
clarification to, or adjustment of, existing policies, not new
policies.
Partly because I'm not convinced that "show the geeks in action"
photographs are adding people to the list of IETF participants
who actually contribute, nor that such pictures increase
contributions to the IETF or support for participants or people
in leadership roles, if people think photography is a problem, I
wouldn't object to a complete photography (official or no) ban
except for video of meeting sessions, but I'm not convinced that
would solve any problem we actually have and for which we lack
solutions either.
However, as someone who mostly participates remotely (and who
will almost certainly not be in London), if I had the proverbial
nickel for every time someone spoke at a microphone and either
omitted giving a name or mumbled it, where someone sat at a
head table whom I couldn't identify by looking at the video, or
when someone spoke at a plenary who was not clearly and
adequately identified, I would have a nice fund for supporting
coming to more meetings. I can't remember when I could actually
see and read a badge on the video. Jabber logs can help a lot
with these problems, but the Jabber scribes who are diligent and
accurate about that are far outnumbered by those who are not
(given the salaries we pay them and the fact that we also expect
them to follow and participate in the meetings, I'm not
complaining, am very pleased with whatever we get, and am
pleasantly surprised and very happy then things work well).
Now I'm not convinced more still photographs would help
significantly with that (or I wouldn't be open to banning them
entirely) but I don't think one can be dismissive about the
identification problem either.
john
