Clint Adams writes:
> What would be better is to have a small "film" area up near the speaker,
> and allow those who wish to be filmed show their explicit consent by
> moving into it to ask their questions on camera, and to not force anyone
> to be in that area if they do not want to be.
I've ac
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:23:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you are seated next to someone who is asking a question, the value is in
> *not* having to accommodate individual requests to not be videoed, and
> having these requests disrupt the utility of the videos in capturing the
> flow of
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:11:35PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
> I would personally be fine with this but people tell me that the
> conference video is int
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
I would personally be fine with this but people tell me that the
conference video is integral to producing a great free operating
system.
> Or what's your s
On 11 September 2014 14:19, Holger Levsen wrote:
> if you are a speaker, you can decide, whether recorded or not.
>
> if you are an attendee and enter a recorded room, this takes precedence over
> your lanyard. be that a talk or the group photo.
>
> if you are an attendee and enter a recorded room
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Not in the context of the lanyards, though. If you have that lanyard,
> whatever its colour may be, and sit in an area with video-taping, one
> default _has_ to prevail over the other.
>
> And what happens if a room is crowded and o
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
>And anyway, the historic memory value we get from having photos from
>the conference is IMO quite high.
The photos and videos are very important to me personally, and I doubt
I'm alone in that feeling.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge,
On 11 September 2014 12:55, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag any other person on
>> any photo. I'm well aware that with todays face recognition technology
>> this won't help much, but still I
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Would signs at the entrance to talk rooms and/or "no video" areas inside
>> the rooms be enough.
>
> That would help for the audience side of things yes.
Not in the context of the lanyards, though. If you have that lanyard,
whatever its colour
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag any other person on
> any photo. I'm well aware that with todays face recognition technology
> this won't help much, but still I belive there's a difference between
> having an anonymou
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think we should give speakers the option (want no recording, want
> only be audio recorded, want recorded on video+audio or don't mind
> either way).
I agree.
> We can make that choice more obvious to attendees and
> photographers by p
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Margarita Manterola
wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Any public presentation which is part of any event, including but not
> limited to keynotes, presentations, lightning talks, addresses, mailing list
> posts and forums, is subject to this code of conduc
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Margarita Manterola
wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Any public presentation which is part of any event, including but not
> limited to keynotes, presentations, lightning talks, addresses, mailing list
> posts and forums, is subject to this code of conduc
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> So do you think we should no longer record and stream the Debconf talks?
> Or what's your solution to be able to continue to record and stream
> video from talks and at the same time respect your privacy?
>From my earlier mail:
I think w
Clint Adams writes:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> project. But I do feel strongly the "no photo" group should be opt-in
>> (and not the "photos OK" group). I don't have numbers for DC14 (and it
>
> I feel strongly the opposite. Violating my privacy should alwa
Richard Hartmann writes:
> Three corner cases I can't get out of my mind:
>
> * What about people who appear to the group photo while wearing
> no-photo lanyards? I think keeping the shot as-is, but not tagging
> them by name, would be prudent.
Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag
16 matches
Mail list logo
