[Members] How about a round-up post on FOSDEM/XMPP Summit @xmpp.org?

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 16:15:47 UTC 2012

On 18 February 2012 15:59, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just had another conversation with Kev, and he confirmed he would
>> like his contributions to group discussions removed. I have neither
>> the time nor inclination to begin detailed editing of hours of audio,
>> nor obviously have I any intention of publishing anyone's
>> participation in the summit without their consent. In light of this I
>> shall not be publishing any of the discussions. I shall still sift
>> through for monologues and talks (they're primarily Peter's iirc) - as
>> those are still useful alone. Anything I don't publish shall be
>> deleted, I don't have an endless supply of storage space :)
> [After further OOB discussion with Matt]
> OK. I'm remain unhappy that there was recording without the awareness
> of those involved (no, it wasn't made clear, to me, that there was
> recording going on, until the very end of the day when I walked to
> that end of the room and saw the microphone), but I can see that
> completely removing everyone's contributions for the sake of my
> distaste is counterproductive and that it's unreasonably
> time-consuming to remove individual contributions.
> So I propose that:
> 1) The recording is edited to contain only the full-room discussions.

To be clear the only things I intended to publish are group
discussions and talks (and these are only of Monday). I stopped the
microphone whenever it was clear no such conversation was happening,
e.g. during lunch and group breaks. In fact I know I accidentally
missed roughly 15 minutes of a group discussion because I did this and
was out of the room when they started.

I planned to split the recording up into topic (e.g. Jingle,
archiving, etc.), to make everything easier to index and for people to
cherry-pick what they're interested in. I haven't listened to the
audio yet to even know if this is the best way to do it (our
discussions weren't particularly organised, as you know), but you
hopefully understand what I was aiming for.

> 2) A list of participants is compiled.
> 3) Permission is sought from the participants.

Thanks, I can do this. It'll take a bit longer obviously, but I'd
rather do it than run the risk of upsetting someone. If you feel this
way, I can't rule out others feeling the same way too.


More information about the Members mailing list