On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:32:06 +0200, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote: > On Dienstag, 13. Juli 2010, micah anderson wrote: > > Its going to have to, and we have already spent far too much time in the > > last months discussing this and scheduling things to re-open it > > now. This would have been a good argument to bring up over a month ago, > > but I'm sorry its too late now to do this. > > if only people had listened a month ago or whenever this was brought up first. we have been in constant communication with edrz about video team requirements and have taken all of those into account in the talks selection process and scheduling. this was discussed a million times and eventually we decided that this was the best scenario. its not fair to suggest that this was brought up months ago and was completely ignored, that isn't even close to what really happened. > also, we requiere people to participate in the previous debconf, so they can > get experience. we experienced exactly what i described at dc9, dc8, ... > > but yeah, for some people this is something new. > > > It seems to me that the break down has been the video team caving to > > these last minute requests, rather than sticking to a "NO". So, you are > > going to have to change that, not all of debconf. > > the videoteam is too big, someone will turn it on. i appreciate your desire to protect the video team and not get them into a bad situation. we want to also help in that regard, and I think that there are a number of options for making it clear to everyone that this is not a possibility. some ideas: make signs for the cameras that say "don't ask to turn these on", have the schedule bot that announces talks that makes it clear if the event is video'd or not and to not ask, we can make it even more clear than it already is that if you ask or pressure someone into doing it, we will rm -rf the file (sending email to the debconf lists, making a blog post, putting it into the arrival packet of info). why not send a big message to the video team list to say "we are absolutely under no circumstances video'ing anything that is not planned to be, people will ask, and you will say no. do not be swayed by their charms, and bribes, no is the answer". and then when you have your video-team scrum, pre-meeting before things start, say "this is how you say no", and then every day when you scramble to start, remind people that there is this word "no" that should be used. its a big team, and at some point, even with telling people this, someone could still turn it on, but at that point there is nothing that can be done and it is their individual responsibility. if other v-t people are around they can remind them about 'no' and if they still insist, then at some point they have decided they want it personally and are personally responsible, and we cannot stop people from doing that. if they turn it on and then regret it because they didn't realize what they are getting into, then they should feel empowered to turn it off. > also i still dont get whats so hard about scheduling 24h in advance. i'm also puzzled about what is so hard about saying one word, 'no'?
Attachment:
pgpS2krLqQs1b.pgp
Description: PGP signature