Fwd: Re: Proceedural Question<br>
It has been pointed out to me by someone who went through this with another
group that the following possibility exists with a videotape.
The tape could be edited (there would be compelling reasons to this if only
for brevity) and the resultant edited tape might not (either innocently or
intentionally) actually represent the sense or actions of the group.
The lawyer for his group suggested that signed releases from each member of
the group being taped might well be appropriate. It seems that most
companies would not permit this in that it would only make things easier
for competitors who were less willing to send multiple heads to the meeting.
This is a tar pit. My recommendation is to stay out.
>To: Mike Takefman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>From: Geoff Thompson <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Proceedural Question
>I agree with Howard on this one. I think it is a bad idea. I am of the
>opinion that we hold meetings to get people to participate rather than
>just observe and take the results home for extraction of value. Our
>meetings are supposed to be interactive, not just a bunch of serial press
>I wouldn't even consider allowing it without clearance from the IEEE-SA
>legal counsel. Even if he says there aren't any legal problems I would
>still think that it would be destructive to the spirit of what we are
>trying to do.
>I think we have denied requests in the past for press camera coverage of
>I am sympathetic to the problems that some of our overseas visitors have
>in terms of keeping up with discussions in a foreign language. I don't
>think that this is the right solution though.
>At 07:18 AM 3/6/01 -0800, Howard Frazier wrote:
>>To: Mike Takefman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Subject: Re: Proceedural Question
>>I think a camcorder is a bit much. You don't want people speaking and
>>posturing for the camera. Our meetings are supposed to be relaxed
>>discussions and debates between professionals. Lights, Camera, Action
>>could turn your meeting into the OJ trial, with you cast in the role
>>of Judge Lance Ito.
>>I don't know if other WGs allow this. I'd discourage the practice.
>>Between the presentation archive and the minutes, there should be enough
>>of a record accessible to the public without recording 48 hours of
>>Mike Takefman wrote:
>> > I've been asked by one of the people coming to the
>> > March Meeting about recording all presentations on
>> > a CAMcorder so that they can show the proceedings
>> > back at their office (in Korea).
>> > Can anyone give me some guidance on this issue.
>> > Has it been done before? Aside from getting
>> > permission from the working group members
>> > are there any other requirements?
>> > thanks,
>> > mike
>> > --
>> > Michael Takefman email@example.com
>> > Manager HW Engineering, Cisco Systems
>> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>> > voice: 613-271-3399 fax: 613-271-4867
| Geoffrey O. Thompson |
| Chair IEEE 802.3 |
| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S SC5-02 |
| 4401 Great America Parkway |
| P. O. Box 58185 |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
| Fax: +1 408 495 5615 |
| E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org |
| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at |