Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes: > Hi Phil, > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes: >> >> > Hi team! >> > >> > Since a few years, debconf has given speakers the ability to mark a talk >> > as one that should not be recorded on video. Such talks sometimes get >> > scheduled in rooms with video equipment. >> > >> > As a member of the FOSDEM organisation, which has an official policy of >> > "if you want it to happen at FOSDEM, you MUST consent to it being >> > recorded on video", I must say I am disheartened by this. Having a talk >> > or BoF be on camera is often useful for various reasons: >> > >> > - It allows remote participation by those of us not lucky enough to make >> > it to the DebConf in question; >> > - It creates a record of what has been said in the talk, which can be >> > useful to refer to after the fact; >> > - It allows people for who English is not a first language to replay the >> > video a few times until they understand what is happening, and/or for >> > things to be subtitled so that they can follow what's happening in >> > their native language (this latter doesn't happen as often as we'd >> > like currently, but we do have a setup for subtitling). >> > - If you want to be at two talks or BoFs which happen at the same time, >> > you can go to the one talk in the knowledge that you'll always be able >> > to watch the video of the other one. >> > >> > While I can understand that sometimes there may be reasons for things >> > not to be recorded, I think that in service of the greater Debian >> > community, DebConf should try to make as many events as possible be >> > public; that is, we should make things recorded by default, not by the >> > whim of the speaker/facilitator of the talk or BoF. >> > >> > It's obviously way too late for this to happen right now anymore, but >> > I[1] would like to suggest that for next year, submission procedures are >> > changed so that: >> > >> > - The form where talk submissions can be made is, if necessary, changed >> > so that things will be recorded by default, unless the speaker >> > explicitly requests otherwise; >> > - It is made clear that "I don't think this would be useful" is not >> > in and of itself a good enough reason (other people might reasonably >> > disagree with that position); >> > - If a speaker requests that a talk not be recorded, we ask them to >> > explain why they request that, so that if the request is based on a >> > misunderstanding of what that would entail practically this can be >> > cleared up; >> > - Talks which are marked as not recorded will by default be scheduled in >> > rooms which have no video content, so that if the not to be recorded >> > talk is marked so for privacy reasons, we don't have to worry about >> > video equipment being left on by mistake, and so that talks which >> > might otherwise have been usefully recorded can still be scheduled in >> > a room with the necessary equipment. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> 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. > >> 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. > >> Is what you're seeing (or rather not seeing ;-) ) actually an >> articact of there being a lot of ad-hoc sessions? > > Possibly, but some of the sessions have been there for quite a while. > >> Perhaps we need to re-examine that policy, or the reason for there being >> a lot of ad-hoc sessions in that case? > > That might work too, yes; but I don't think that negates (all of) the > things I said above. Not at all -- it wasn't trying to -- I agree that it's a shame. In the one session I was in where I know it had been explicitly requested, it was raised as a disapointment that it was not being videoed, and the speaker admitted that they had misjudged the likely character of the discussion, and that in future years would not make such a request (basically because they now realise that Debian is not like other fora where a similar session would not work if videoed) Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature