On 2008-12-17 18:16, Michael Foord wrote: >>> The question is whether allowing people who are unwilling to let us >>> publish a recording is worth the hassle it causes - and I'm -1 on >>> allowing it as I see no benefit. >>> >>> As a side benefit, I think this is more likely to persuade people to be >>> willing for recordings to be published than it is to dissuade people to >>> give talks. This is certainly the experience of PyCon US. >>> >> >> That's the US way of persuading people. I hope it doesn't >> become the European way. >> >> It's easy enough to have a checkbox on the registration which says: >> >> > > That bit is easy enough. > >> """ >> [ ] I agree to have my presentation published on the net by the >> EuroPython organizers. >> >> Please note that for organizational reasons, the organizers may >> still record the presentation, even if you decide against giving >> authorization to publish the recording. The organizers will >> only publish presentations from speakers/attendees who have given >> their express permission to publish their works. >> """ >> >> It's easy enough to just skip talks while editing them based >> on a list of speakers who have granted permission. >> >> > > Actually you're wrong. This is the bit that causes significant extra > work and difficulty when editing. > > This is why PyCon US introduced the policy and why we would like to. > > If it was 'easy enough' it wouldn't be suggested.
No, Michael, getting written approval was what caused the overhead. They also tried to only record talks they had permission for. If you just record everything and skip the parts in editing that are not authorized for publishing, you have *less* work to do. Note that editing takes very long, if done right. Skipping a talk in the recording takes a few seconds and saves you a few hours of work for each talk that you don't have to edit. >> For lightning talks and other adhoc presentations, I'd be +1 on >> requiring implicit permission from all speakers. >> >> >>>>> They have no prevision >>>>> for exceptions and therefore no need to check when preparing >>>>> recordings >>>>> for release. >>>>> >>>> I think that's a wrong approach. >>>> >>>> Besides: Recording and editing sessions is a lot of work and that work >>>> is better spent on more useful activities, such as e.g. getting a >>>> complete list of talk *slides* on the net. >>>> >>> >>> There is benefit in both. >>> >> >> Sure, there's always a benefit in being able to access presentations >> after they have been given. However, in the past, not even the slides >> were made available by all speakers. IMHO, tt would be far better to >> at least get all those together on the website, rather than discussing >> the next steps. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Dec 17 2008) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ 2008-12-02: Released mxODBC.Connect 1.0.0 http://python.egenix.com/ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ _______________________________________________ Europython-improve mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
