Re: [tlug] But too much logs kills the logs: How to Grok Logs

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Bruno Raoult <braoult@example.com> wrote:
> In fact, I said I would give back a copy of the translated version.
> Would this scenario work (I mean being acceptable):
> - I get a version of the document
...
> - If the answer is "no", this is finished


How did you "get the version of the document" in the first place?
Through the owner?  Then you would have had to give a reason.

If you aren't truthful (for example, you say you want to "study" it
and then end up translating it), then be prepared for the owner to
being upset at you.

In any case, whether or not the scenario you propose is acceptable
depends on the owner, the mood s/he is in, etc.  I don't think it
would matter if everyone in TLUG said it is fair -- it's still up to
the owner.


> I would suggest: Publish all support documents on TLUG, with appropriates
> warnings
> and rights in them (such as what you can find in GPL). The ideal place could
> be attached on every
> TLUG meeting announcement page, or a separate one (not sure what is the
> best).


You're making a lot of rules for something which the presenter is
doing *voluntarily*.  :-)

Some conferences pay the speaker some money (i.e., the "invited
speaker") and in those cases, the money might be attached to the
condition that all such material is public.  But, that isn't the case
with TLUG technical talks...

If you add too many conditions, then you risk losing potential presenters...


> PS. I think video and support documents are very different: For the first
> one, I understand the owner issue.
> For the second, I am less sure. If the speaker allows a video to be taken,
> who is the real owner? You start


Yes, you have a point.  If I went to a professional photographer, the
professional photographer owns the photo of me.  In one case (not in
Japan), I had a photo taken and got the photos and wanted the
dimensions altered.  I took it to another shop (because the first one
is far away and I couldn't be bothered :-) ) and they refused because
the first one owned the copyright.

Even though they own the copyright, and thus "the owner", there are
limits to what they can do with it.  They can't sell the photos to the
local tabloid (because photos of me in the local tabloid would surely
increase sales :-P ).

There are reasonable limits to what the owner can do.  And when two
sides disagree, then that's where law courts come in...


> way we -human- came to where we are today).
> And my knowledge is surely not *mine*. I did not discover that earth was not
> flat :) Sharing is the magic word, isn't it?


How about this, which did happen at a conference I attended.  There
was a discussion about whether or not the talks should be recorded and
placed on the web.  A blanket policy...if your paper is accepted, and
you present, then you will be recorded.  All in the name of sharing
information.

Well, someone pointed out that in one case, a student went to a job
interview and found out that some unflattering video of himself giving
a talk was used in deciding on whether or not he got the job.
Something innocent...like the speaker was nervous, etc.  Now, it is
unfortunate that the company did that; but thanks to search engines,
it is very easy for them to look it up.  They could even look at a
potential candidates' presentation slides or even postings on TLUG.
:-)

No, it isn't fair...  But while we should share information, we should
also be aware of the potential consequences; I'm sure no conference
with good intentions to share information would ever want to hurt the
chances of a student getting a job...

IMHO, I think we should be weary of always thinking about the needs of
the majority.

Ray