On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 05:11:39AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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.
Honestly, I think that the value of a recording and a live stream for the
greater community is more important in this situation. To quote Spock: "The
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
If the "no recordings" box is ticked, I think we should ask the speaker
for a reason. I'm not saying we should outlaw the practice -- there may
be a good reason for having something not be recorded -- but I do think
we should discourage it.
> > > 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".
Right.
> 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.
This is the bit that I'm questioning.
I think we should actively engage with people who do not ask for video
coverage. Allow it, yes, but discourage the practice.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
