[Eg-oversight-board] Proposed conference photography policy

[Rogan Hamby]

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Galen Charlton <gmc at esilibrary.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > This is in my mind in fact a more important point than the photography
> > policy and that's the creation of a safe and welcoming environment at the
> > conference.  I would expand this point beyond the issue of speakers being
> > photographed and say we should address this in the harassment policy
> > regarding any attendees.
>
> I'm wondering if we're entering into violent agreement?
>
>
Perhaps, sometimes it takes a circuitous route to get to the point.  :)

(btw, if circuitous is spelled wrong blame Google, it looks wrong to me but
Google assures me I spelled it correctly)



> It's my view that the photography policy is part of an overall policy
> for fostering an inclusive environment at Evergreen events.  I think
> the proposed policy can be viewed in part as an extension of the code
> of conduct, which includes harassing photography and recording as one
> of the examples of harassment.  The proposal additionally supplies a

mechanism for attendees to express their preferences and accommodates
> those who prefer not to be photographed at all.  Thus far, I see no
> reason why speakers cannot be included under that policy -- albeit,

with an understanding that additional steps (e.g., notes in the
> program) would be useful to counter the default expectation that
> speakers are fair game to photograph while they are presenting.
>
>
My concern lies with the harassment not the photography.  To me the
photography issue is one of privacy and there are different aspects to
privacy.  One aspect to privacy, that of anonymity, is voided when someone
chooses to speak.  Part of this may come down to do we see a conference as
a public venue.  I do and that informs my opinion about the anonymity
aspect.  Still, I understand that all of this is out of a desire to protect
attendees (and I consider speakers a sub class of attendees) and I'm very
pro protecting people.  So, if I'm outvoted on this aspect I won't be upset
with it.

Anonymity is of course part of the issue behind the lanyard discussion for
attendees and I think we should be transparent about our measures and see
if there is anywhere we can do even better than we have in the past, though
I know every committee has tried to look out for attendees at every
conference.

However (again), regardless of the outcome of that discussion about
anonymity what I do feel very strongly about is that voiding anonymity in
no way waives other rights that are related to privacy such as the right to
not have one's image used in a derogatory and hostile manner and that we
need to do everything we can to ensure people that if something does happen
we won't tolerate it and keep the conference welcoming to everyone.


> I think you've outlined a good set of reasons for why bans (either
> lifetime or of shorter duration) should be considered as an option for
> sanctions under the harassment policy.  I do think that formally
> adding that as an option will take a little more infrastructure for
> the EOB to discuss, as by its very nature, deciding to ban an
> individual from future events would need to be done by an entity that
> continues to stay in existence from conference to conference.  FWIW,
> though, I think that's an issue that need not be a blocker for
> considering the proposed photography policy.
>
>
I agree.  I want people to be aware of it as I think the two issues to
intersect both meaningfully and significantly but I think the issue of
anonymity can be considered separately.  You can consider it orthogonal if
you like.  :)


> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Manager of Implementation
> Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
> email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell:   +1 404-984-4366
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> http://evergreen-ils.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20140507/fab01223/attachment.html>