Re: [Debconf-discuss] "Do not photograph" checkbox in registration
Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius@gmail.com> writes:
> We are talking about a handful of people "against" several hundred
> on-site and several hundred more off-site. I am glad to set up some
> extra rules to accommodate their special wishes. Removing useful
> things from hundreds of other people is not ok.
I don't understand this idea of setting one group against another. I
don't think that things are as binary as they seem, nor do I feel like
this is a fair comparison.
A few examples, I know one person who told me that they did *not* check
the elusive box because they didn't see any point because people were
ignoring it; another who told me they thought it was better *not* to
check the box, thus identifying themselves as someone who didn't want to
be photographed (and drawing more attention to themselves) - they
instead took it on themselves to hide. I know two people who didn't
check all kinds of boxes that they otherwise would, because they were
careless/busy, or because the system was a little confusing (boxes
showed up after you'd registered and filled out all the boxes; if you
logged in with sso one time, and then alioth another, it was as if you
were a new person, etc.)
None of this is to try and increase the 'against' group numbers, on the
contrary I think that concept is flawed, but rather to point out that,
at least in a couple cases that I know about, the concept is fairly
inaccurate method to turn into some kind of strategic battle between the
two.
I might also mention that there are people who are fine with their
picture being taken, who are at the same time *not at all ok* with
pictures being taken of people who do not want their picture
taken. There are also plenty of those hundreds of off-site people you
mention who might have checked such a box, had they been attending, or
didn't attend at all because they were afraid that such a check box
would be ignored, or who would completely support people not having
their picture/video taken if they didn't want it... all of these should
be included in this 'against' category.
I'm sure my list is not exhaustive, and there are plenty of other cases
to consider if you are going to try and pit one group against another,
but I think fundamentally this is flawed and not the right way to
approach the problem.
Reply to: