Re: Saddened by the amount of events in video-equipped rooms which are not recorded

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org>]

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,