[Eg-oversight-board] Proposed conference photography policy
Kathy Lussier
klussier at masslnc.org
Thu May 15 13:28:50 EDT 2014
Hi all,
I just wanted to added a few comments to this discussion before today's
meeting.
Grace is right when she says it's not a huge loss of revenue, but it
does mean that we won't be reimbursed for the cost of purchasing the
lanyards. However, the cost of purchasing lanyards does go down quite a
bit once we stop printing a sponsor's logos on them (unless we decide to
print the Evergreen logo on the lanyards.) At the same time, I'm always
concerned about tying the hands of future conference planners.
> I don't mind recording preferences so long as we have controls as to
> who sees it and we destroy the records afterwards.
I don't know how easy it is to destroy the records. We use Eventbrite
for our registrations, and I don't see an easy way to do it after a
quick look, but I could be missing something.
> A minor tangent - But, with that said I actually think being
> transparent about controls of attendance records would be a good thing
> regardless of what we do about the photography preferences. We had a
> snafu with the list of attendees being emailed out and I don't recall
> but were folks asked if it was OK to be put on that list? I assume we
> were but I don't actually recall. It's easy for me to forget about
> the privacy aspect of this as I attend representing an organization
> and it's all very public but some might not be and we need to be
> conscious of their privacy.
>
We do let people know at registration time. There is a checkbox that
allows people to opt out of being included on the attendee list. The
language (approved by the SFC) is as follows:
> We will produce an attendee list for the conference. This list is not
> to be published on the web or to be used for unsolicited commercial,
> marketing, or bulk email purposes. If you do not wish to be part of
> this list, check the box below to opt out.
That language is also included on a few conference pages and the "this
list is not to be published..." bit is included on the footer of every
page on the attendee list.
> Could you perhaps have a generic, anonymous survey that goes out to
> all conference goers, prior to the event asking preference? This
> would give you a rough count without collecting names. I was thinking
> a simple Google form (or equivalent) with the text of the policy and
> the choices following. There would be no record generated except a
> raw count of the lanyard choices. Then you could order X% more of
> each, just in case folks change their mind on location.
That's a possibility too.
I disagree that speakers should not be included in the opt-in/opt-out
policy for photographs. There could be some real reasons why somebody
does not want their photo posted, and I think the lanyards offer a good
way to communicate that information for attendees and speakers alike.
During this year's conference, we did send an e-mail to speakers letting
them know that they would be photographed, but also telling them that
they could opt out of being photographed. I've seen examples from many
other conferences that allow speakers to opt out. Although there were
many photos posted to social media sites this year, a large percentage
of them were posted by a volunteer from the conference committee who was
informed of the speakers' photography preferences. There was one speaker
who preferred not to have photographs posted and there was another who
asked that we remove a photo after it had been posted. It's true that
another audience member could have take a photo and posted it to social
media, but there really was no way to communicate those preferences to
the attendees.
With the lanyards, attendees who are posting to social media will be
able to clearly see what a speaker's photography preferences are, so it
would be less likely to happen. If the policy is adopted, I think it
would be important to disseminate this information widely before and
during the conference so that attendees are aware that they are expected
to honor those preferences.
Kathy
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
klussier at masslnc.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
On 5/7/2014 3:58 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Galen Charlton <gmc at esilibrary.com
> <mailto:gmc at esilibrary.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Rogan Hamby
> <rogan.hamby at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:gmc at esilibrary.com>
> direct: +1 770-709-5581 <tel:%2B1%20770-709-5581>
> cell: +1 404-984-4366 <tel:%2B1%20404-984-4366>
> skype: gmcharlt
> web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> http://evergreen-ils.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20140515/2e496a70/attachment.html>
More information about the eg-oversight-board
mailing list