Hi, On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:43:27PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > below are my own opinions, I am not speaking for the content team as a > whole. > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:21:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > Four bits of feedback: > > > > First, are we sure we want to invite talks and leave it up entirely > > to the presenter, whether they can be broadcast by video? Shouldn't > > it be much more that we require permission to broadcast by video all > > presentations (not necessarily debates or ad-hoc stuff) and will > > make exceptions only if given a good reason? > > I tend to agree with you here. Remote participation is a very important > part and we should make it clear that livestream and recordings are > absolutely supposed to be the default. > I really don't like this approach. People who have a problem with video would refrain from participating if they need to convince us that they have a good reason. Yes video is important, but IMHO we shouldn't do it on the cost of risking to disrespect the speakers' right to choose how to use their image.
Moreover, this is a problem that does not exist. We don't see people abusing from the fact that they can opt-out from video coverage. I don't have the numbers, but following the video team for years, I know that only a few people request for not be covered by video, and I don't think this compromises the quality of the conference. IMHO We can make it the default and explain the importance of video for remote participation, but a simple "I'm sorry but I don't feel comfortable with that" would be a good enough reason for not being recorded. Tassia. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
