(top post)
I agree with Mary's summary. To say again what I've said
before, I don't think the IESG should be instituting more
policies (of any sort) unless there is a clear and accurate
explanation of what the problem is and how the policy is both
justified and will be effective in solving that problem.
Without that, very long, confusing, time-consuming, threads that
make different assumptions about what this is about (sexual
harassment? someone obnoxiously shoving cameras into people's
faces? publication of photographs versus having them taken?
ability to even partially hide one's identity? and so on) and
that include assertions about this particular proposal being ok
because of analogies to other organizations and their solutions
that may not hold.
Perhaps more important, I've gotten several off-list notes about
the subject and my comments. While most of those have been very
constructive, a few could easily be construed as rude,
insulting, or attempts to intimidate. I'm not going to raise
this or the details with the ombudsteam, largely because I'm not
that bothered and can't guess at the actual motives of those who
wrote those notes. If you think you might be someone who wrote
a note that someone else might interpret that way, don't bother
to write me --I don't want to debate the details, have already
forgotten the sources of those notes and will forget the notes
themselves soon -- just think about it the next time, with the
next topic and the next subject. But I'm concerned that we
might be seeing a corollary to Godwin's law, i.e., that, if a
conversation that is not well-defined with regard to topic goes
on long enough, it eventually turns nasty. And, for me, it
marks the end of my participation in this set of threads or on
this topic.
best,
john
--On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 12:37 -0600 Mary B
<mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> [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.
>
> 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
>>
>>
