On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:51:38PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I do not believe that policies about IETF meetings actually require or should require IETF consensus. The IESG runs the IETF meeting. The IESG has access to confidential information that would not be appropriate to share with the IETF as a whole. That's the job we appoint them to do.
Sure... Actually something like Adams last post explaining one
root cause would have helped earlier in the thread, or Mary's
"hackathon incident" (if those two are different).
> So the proposed policy is being put forward so that we can comment on it, but "we" can't write "whatever we want" into it.
anything == orthogonal to harrassment/intimidation.
> As far as I can tell, and please forgive me if I missed it???the thread has been long???you haven't done that. We're talking about something somebody said about the policy, not about the policy.
Yes. The comment on harrassment/intimidation was a comment
about the thread (not the policy) in an effort to help shorten
the thread because i felt that argument it was conflating
the discussion about the policy. I will accept total defeat
on achieving that goal *sigh*.
>If you think there is something that is unclear or problematic about the policy, of course you should say what, and perhaps "send text."
I did state that it would help to walk through a bunch of explicit
examples and get some understand what applying the policy to them
would mean. Another poster had a few good examples. I did not see
a response to this though. But like you said. Its a really long
thread, so i might have missed those.
Cheers
Toerless
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
