Hi,
- Mensagem original -
> De: "Holger Levsen"
>
> to sum up: me too would appreciate 'no video areas' in DebConf talk
> rooms (*), and I would be willing to set up signs and markers to try to make
> this happen. Please remind me next year in Curitiba! ;)
In the biggest auditorium ther
Hi,
though a month late, I'd still like to comment on this thread.
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 11:26:21PM +0800, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 2018-08-03 08:40, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Not having video pans of the audience since it doesn't necessarily add
> > much value to the streams and having
On 05.08.2018 17:44, Carl Karsten wrote:
I think it is an excellent compromise
I don't.
I'd like to bring up priorities.
photos are an important way to show what
happens at an event to the world,
Who are these people and why do they need to see photos?
There is no cabal, right?
We are v
What about border cases like "there is someones arm in the photo"
or "there are people in the background"?
Currently, I wouldn't upload such photos without removing the people.
What do others think?
> I think it is an excellent compromise
I don't.
I'd like to bring up priorities.
> photos are an important way to show what
happens at an event to the world,
Who are these people and why do they need to see photos?
> and we do need them, if only for the
sponsorship report at the end of a debc
On 2018-08-03 08:40, Paul Wise wrote:
> Not having video pans of the audience since it doesn't necessarily add
> much value to the streams and having no-video audience areas (with
> microphone) would also be appreciated, I've had people ask me to ask
> questions on their behalf because of current p
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 9:09 AM Elena ``of Valhalla''
wrote:
> As for the BoF: please consider one thing: being able to see the person
> speaking has a HUGE value for people who are hard of hearing; I don't
> think that our videos can be followed just by lip reading (often, it's
> impossible to ge
On 2018-08-04 at 13:35:26 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> My take on this? Just take the picture. But, if you take pictures of a
> group, you have the responsibility to review them, and discard any
> pictures that have on them people who have opted out.
Having a list would need that photographers need
Hi!
micah anderson:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>>> Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
>>> explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of
>>> being marked as "non-recorded".
>>
>>
Hi!
Wouter Verhelst:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
>> explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of
>> being marked as "non-recorded".
> If you do not want to be on a photo,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 03:41:36PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > As a member of the video team, I would strongly object to such a policy.
> > There is nothing more annoying than hearing a question on a video but
> > not seeing the speaker.
>
> There are plenty off
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 03:38:29PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> >> Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
> >> explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 01:35:26PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst dijo [Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 05:38:24PM +0200]:
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> > > Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
> > > explicitly choses by the particip
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> As a member of the video team, I would strongly object to such a policy.
> There is nothing more annoying than hearing a question on a video but
> not seeing the speaker.
There are plenty off things that are more annoying than that: audio not
working, video playing some
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
>> explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of
>> being marked as "non-recorded".
>
> No.
Yes.
> Anything which req
Wouter Verhelst dijo [Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 05:38:24PM +0200]:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> > Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
> > explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of
> > being marked as "non-recorde
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:40:59AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>
> > it has been pointed out to me that there *is* a photo policy for
> > DebConf within the code of conduct.
>
> Not having video pans of the audience since it doesn't necessarily ad
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be
> explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of
> being marked as "non-recorded".
No.
Anything which requires a photographer to check a list at th
Hi!
Gunnar Wolf:
> Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:36:59PM +0800]:
> So, I think that setting specific areas of the rooms (hacklabs
> included) as "no photo areas" would be workable. Having people get
> color-coded lanyards (specially when using wide lanyards, as we are
> doing this
Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:36:59PM +0800]:
> One thing to mention here is that the specific IETF policy could work. I
> apologize for not reading the source document before commenting on the
> representations of it on this list.
>
> The key point in that policy are the exception
One thing to mention here is that the specific IETF policy could work. I
apologize for not reading the source document before commenting on the
representations of it on this list.
The key point in that policy are the exceptions. In practise the IETF
'do-not-photograph' lanyard/label, as stated, on
Hi!
Taowa:
> *If* there were such a policy in place the current CoC would prohibit even
> takin such pictures, let alone publishing them.
>
> However, as others have mentioned, a system of different lanyard colours is
> difficult to manage for photographers.
Seems to work at IETF though :)
Ch
Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> it has been pointed out to me that there *is* a photo policy for
> DebConf within the code of conduct.
As an attendee who generally dislikes being photographed and knows
various folks who have similar feelings I would like a solution that
allows photographers to
*If* there were such a policy in place the current CoC would prohibit even
takin such pictures, let alone publishing them.
However, as others have mentioned, a system of different lanyard colours is
difficult to manage for photographers.
Taowa
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 17:34, Pranav Jain wrote:
>
> However I would like to make it clearer at future DebConfs that this is
> not okay. It seems like people don't read the code of conduct before
> entering the conference. At IETF, because of a similar issue, a photo
> policy was introduced which gives everybody the possibility to show
> their will
On 18-07-31 10:09:00, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
it has been pointed out to me that there *is* a photo policy for DebConf
within the code of conduct. However, today I had to explicitly ask
somebody to refrain from taking pictures of me within a non recorded
BoF, namely the privacy BoF, and this person
Aigars Mahinovs writes:
> This has been discussed before. While that sounds non-problematic, it will
> in fact make it nearly impossible to have any useful photographic coverage
> of a Debconf.
It is not 'nearly impossible', it is just restricted.
> No signals on badges or lanyards are visible
This has been discussed before. While that sounds non-problematic, it will
in fact make it nearly impossible to have any useful photographic coverage
of a Debconf. No signals on badges or lanyards are visible enough to be
able to notice a person who do not want to be photographed in the public of
a
Hi,
- Mensagem original -
> De: "Ulrike Uhlig"
>
> However I would like to make it clearer at future DebConfs that this is
> not okay. It seems like people don't read the code of conduct before
> entering the conference. At IETF, because of a similar issue, a photo
> policy was introduce
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:09:00AM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> However I would like to make it clearer at future DebConfs that this is
> not okay. It seems like people don't read the code of conduct before
> entering the conference.
at other conferences, the code of conduct is handed to *every*
Hi!
it has been pointed out to me that there *is* a photo policy for DebConf
within the code of conduct. However, today I had to explicitly ask
somebody to refrain from taking pictures of me within a non recorded
BoF, namely the privacy BoF, and this person was being aggressive
towards me when
31 matches
Mail list logo
