The request for this to be off the record was explicit during the introduction to the talk, so I’m not sure why it’s ambiguous. And “off the record” has a pretty clear meaning—I certainly had the clear expectation that my question, and his answer, weren’t going to be published.
Edit: I do not recall the phrasing, but as I said below, I was under a distinct impression that the request for no recording and no transcript was at least indicative, and that asking him if you could share notes publicly would have been the right thing to do.
I definitely don’t remember the terms “off the record” being used.
And I think if the other participants of the meetup who commented on the post, had any memory of these terms being used, they would have mentioned it. Because, yes, that’s not very ambiguous and I don’t think there would have been much of a discussion then.
Whether this term was being used also feels pretty cruxy to me, so other people chiming in would be useful (ironically it would be useful to have a recording of the talk so we could figure out what confidentiality request was made :P).
I don’t have a very good (or even halfway decent) memory for phrases, so I have no idea, and since no-one else heard it, I assume it wasn’t said. Still, it seemed clear to me that the request was intended for the talk to be off the record, in the journalistic sense.
The phrase “no recording and no transcript,” which you seem to agree was said explicitly, seems to indicate that he didn’t want there to be a record of what he said. At that point, maybe you didn’t technically do anything he requested you not to do, but it seems like the responsible and decent thing would be to have asked Sam if he minded.
If the words “off the record” were used, that does feel stronger. I wasn’t there. My understanding was that “no recording and no transcript” was what was requested.
It may have been requested from the organizers and it may have been mentioned that there won’t be a recording, but as far as I remember it was not requested from the participants.
I don’t recall what phrase was used, but I thought that it was clear enough. If someone said that they agree to do a talk on the condition that there be no recording and no transcript, unlike every other talk in the series, it seems to take a really weird model of the situation to claim that you had no idea that they would not want people publicly posting notes. At the very least, it merits checking.
I think there’s a difference between “recording and transcript” and “some guy’s rough notes”. If the concern is journalist-quote-mining, the latter might be substantially less useful to a journalist while still be useful to people in the community.
I agree that checking would have been a good idea, but notes definitely feel they like they fall in ambiguous zone given what was said according to people’s reports.
The request for this to be off the record was explicit during the introduction to the talk, so I’m not sure why it’s ambiguous. And “off the record” has a pretty clear meaning—I certainly had the clear expectation that my question, and his answer, weren’t going to be published.
Edit: I do not recall the phrasing, but as I said below, I was under a distinct impression that the request for no recording and no transcript was at least indicative, and that asking him if you could share notes publicly would have been the right thing to do.
I definitely don’t remember the terms “off the record” being used.
And I think if the other participants of the meetup who commented on the post, had any memory of these terms being used, they would have mentioned it. Because, yes, that’s not very ambiguous and I don’t think there would have been much of a discussion then.
Whether this term was being used also feels pretty cruxy to me, so other people chiming in would be useful (ironically it would be useful to have a recording of the talk so we could figure out what confidentiality request was made :P).
I don’t have a very good (or even halfway decent) memory for phrases, so I have no idea, and since no-one else heard it, I assume it wasn’t said. Still, it seemed clear to me that the request was intended for the talk to be off the record, in the journalistic sense.
The phrase “no recording and no transcript,” which you seem to agree was said explicitly, seems to indicate that he didn’t want there to be a record of what he said. At that point, maybe you didn’t technically do anything he requested you not to do, but it seems like the responsible and decent thing would be to have asked Sam if he minded.
If the words “off the record” were used, that does feel stronger. I wasn’t there. My understanding was that “no recording and no transcript” was what was requested.
It may have been requested from the organizers and it may have been mentioned that there won’t be a recording, but as far as I remember it was not requested from the participants.
I don’t recall what phrase was used, but I thought that it was clear enough. If someone said that they agree to do a talk on the condition that there be no recording and no transcript, unlike every other talk in the series, it seems to take a really weird model of the situation to claim that you had no idea that they would not want people publicly posting notes. At the very least, it merits checking.
I think there’s a difference between “recording and transcript” and “some guy’s rough notes”. If the concern is journalist-quote-mining, the latter might be substantially less useful to a journalist while still be useful to people in the community.
I agree that checking would have been a good idea, but notes definitely feel they like they fall in ambiguous zone given what was said according to people’s reports.