Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:36:59PM +0800]: > One thing to mention here is that the specific IETF policy could work. I > apologize for not reading the source document before commenting on the > representations of it on this list. > > The key point in that policy are the exceptions. In practise the IETF > 'do-not-photograph' lanyard/label, as stated, only applies to small groups > (like under 5 people). As soon as there are more people than that in a > photo, the policy no longer applies. And it also does not apply to video > coverage. > > That would be workable, but unless that is clearly and specifically > explained to people choosing this option it could lead to more conflict > because of people expecticting the lanyard color to be obeyed in all > circumstances. This could be seen as a bit of false advertising, unless it > is very, very clearly expressed to everyone concerned.
Having pictures of a handful of people is clearly quite personal. Having pans of the audience or shots of a full hacklab is quite different. We should have different policies for clearly different things. I don't feel it feasible to be able to uphold a policy of "no photos in any way possible for attendees with a _____ lanyard", as others (me included) like taking pictures of the general environment. So, I think that setting specific areas of the rooms (hacklabs included) as "no photo areas" would be workable. Having people get color-coded lanyards (specially when using wide lanyards, as we are doing this year) also would. Going further than that, like suggesting a complete ban of photos in common places, is as much as a disrespect as taking photos of a person who does not wish to appear in them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
