On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[MB] Only fed by your response - rather than answering the question I asked succinctly, you went down the whole series into silliness (with that being a nice word as to where your response ended) - i.e., the problem is that the professional photographer has taken photos of people that don't want their photos taken. Note, throughout, I have *never* said we shouldn't do this (that's your interpretation of my response), I'm trying to clearly understand the fundamental problem we're solving and highlight issues we will definitely encounter (as have others). And, I will re-iterate based on subsequent discussions on IESG possibly having access to sensitive information, that if we really have these sorts of issues, I don't think they should be hidden and limited to IESG discussions - your response indicated we don't but others seem to allude to the notion that we do.
On 3/5/18 3:11 PM, Mary B wrote:
And this is were we go down the rathole because as came out in this thread, there are a lot of other situations whereby this noun applies.
Now we're two-for-two on the Nirvana fallacy.
Again, if this is just an outcome based on IESG discussing Hackathon issue, then the way forward seems appropriate - i.e, being addressed publicly. If it's some of the other issues, then it clearly falls to the ombudsteam. Fundamentally, if you all considered this as something that would resolve sexual harassment issues, then that's not needed as it's covered in the existing anti-harassment policy. As I said before, it was a bit of a red herring to point to ada initiative, since their concerns were all directly related to sexual harassment (from the material I have read) - they weren't about people reluctant to confront someone.
I think one issue with the proposed policy is that the notion of harassment is ONLY mentioned in the UNOFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY section of the policy. Whereas, some harassment concerns can still be related to the OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - you allude to that at the end, but it seems that this situation should be handled exactly as recommended for the UNOFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - i.e., if there's perceived abuse, then our process is to contact the ombudsteam. In particular, given the fact that the whole notion raised was that people would be afraid to tell someone to stop taking photos because they were concerned that doing so to someone in an "official" IETF position might take that negatively (i.e,. the intimidation factor).
[/MB]
/a
