M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2008-12-17 17:49, Michael Foord wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2008-12-17 15:21, Michael Foord wrote:
It is not making exceptions that provide the benefit... PyCon US at
least feels that there is no reason to accept a public talk where the
speaker refuses to allow it to be made public...
There's a difference between allowing someone else to publish your
talk or go public with it yourself.
There's also a difference in giving a talk to a live audience which
is over when its over or having your performance persist on the net
until eternity.
I agree.
I'm -1 on rejecting talks from people who want to keep control
over how they go live on the net or if at all.
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.
Michael Foord
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.
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
_______________________________________________
Europython-improve mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
