[Volunteers] [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: [Lug-nuts] Meetings, Other Lugs]
J. Paul Reed
preed at svlug.org
Wed Aug 3 12:55:33 PDT 2005
n 02 Aug 2005 at 10:54:28, William R Ward arranged the bits on my disk to say:
> J. Paul Reed writes:
> >I'm anti-video, but pro-audio (and truth be told, I've seen people
> >recording meetings, SANS PERMISSION [which pisses me off to no end]
> >before, anyway).
> Why anti-video?
Because I'm not convinced it adds anything to the actual audio portion, and
that associated with the fact that it requires (more) expensive equipment,
requires editing, and is generally a pain in the butt makes the
cost-benefit ratio go really high.
> And why not let people record meetings? As long as the meeting is open
> to the public, there should be no expectation of privacy. If you want to
> ban recording you should communicate that to people attending.
There are laws in the State of California that prohibit recordings of this
nature without notification of all the participants.
Anyway, it's not a privacy issue, per se: It's a courtesy to our speakers.
As a speaker, I'm not expecting that I'm being recorded unless I'm told
that I may or will be recorded. To find out that something I said in some
random LUG meeting months ago has been posted to a website and I'm being
oft-quoted would *seriously* piss me off.
And we should communicate the no-recording thing to attendees (I honestly
never thought someone would be so rude), but... then I'd have to say it at
every meeting and make a huge deal out of it. And I wasn't prepared to do
that when I saw it.
> I agree. However if someone who isn't working on that wants to take the
> initiative, I see no reason to prevent them doing so.
Mostly agreed, however right now, the whole thing seems to be mostly a
distraction with no clear owner or direction.
Silicon Valley Linux Users' Group
preed at svlug.org
More information about the volunteers