On 3/5/18 2:10 PM, Mary B wrote:
With the "tried-and-proven policies" being compromises and having had similar discussions with differing views just like we're having here. And, those policies came about to solve an entirely different problem (specific to women AFAICT) than the one that has been used as the example here, which is equally applicable to men. I asked Ekr if he had read the background as to why the other groups developed their policies, so I'll ask you the same question?
Oh, absolutely. I was the one who flagged the Ada Initiative page to the IESG in the first place. And while I believe that the "specific to women" problem is *a* reason to get a policy like this in place, it is not *the* reason.
And, these policies were developed by groups that also do not have the amount of video recording as part of their usual meetings. So, the notion that what other groups have done is an ideal and obvious fit for IETF dismisses a lot of key points that people have raised.
The video issue is a matter of trying to strike a balance: we need the video feeds for the remote participation experience that we have nowadays. Rolling back to audio-only would be a disservice to remote participants; while, at the same time, saying that the presence of video means we should just give up entirely on a photography policy is a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy [1].
/a ___ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Examples
