Wouter Verhelst dijo [Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 11:58:33AM +0200]: > > I know that some of them were specifically requested to be without > > recording, so I suppose there is no reason to put them in a different > > room if that was going to leave the room empty. > > My point is that sometimes this is requested when it would not have been > necessary. The fact that they are specifically requesting that seems > wrong to me, at least in some cases.
I cannot judge on the sensibilities of people that don't want to be recorded. Video is on by default, only disabled by specific user request. > > Also, the ad-hoc sessions do not get video coverage, as a matter of > > policy. > > I believe this policy was set because the video team cannot be expected > to provide video coverage at extreme short notice. That however > shouldn't mean we can't provide any coverage for ad-hoc sessions if they > were requested quite well in advance... > > In addition, like Andreas already said, it should be the responsibility > of the scheduling and/or video team to decide whether or not video > coverage can be done in that case, not of the speaker. I asked the video team when outlining the process for ad hoc sessions. We agreed the interested speakers would have to ensure the video team would be able to cover - That means, they just have to tell me "I talked with video team and they are cool with that place/time". Some people didn't request the service, didn't feel it was worth the hassle, or I don't know why. But if they didn't feel it's important enough to gather enough video people to cover their talk, we are not scheduling it for video. Greetings,
