On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 08:13:20PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If i am incorrect on this assumption, and by putting specific
> > prohibitions into the photo policy would raise them to
> > become intimidation/harrassment, then i am all for
> > working that out explicitly.
>
> With the new policy, if someone signals that they don't want to be photographed, and you photograph them repeatedly, they can complain to the ombudsperson.
Right. and i did not content that goal of a photo policy. But
for that matter, we can write whatever we want into that policy,
it doesn't have to be related to harrassment/intimidation. That
was my point.
> Without this policy, they can't.
They should be if it constitutes intimidation/harrassment.
Yes, i did see Alissias claim that we need a photo policy to
have ombutsteam become active, but i don't think thats true
when the behavior constitutes intimidation or harrassment.
> Seems really straightforward to me. This "shoving the camera in the face" thing isn't mentioned in the policy.
Right. That term came up in the mail thread and was at least
in my perception taken as the most important aspect of the
policy on the thread. The policy btw. states something like
"violation of policy may amount to harrassment...".
> so I don't know why you keep talking about it.
Because it was referred to repeatedly in the mail thread.
Also, i was simply suggesting to consider intimidation/harrassment
to be a separate issue from the photo policy and you did disagree
on that.
Cheers
Toerless
