Create meeting recording policy

[dyladan]

Related #2681

Adds a policy that bans zoom bots and third party recorders.

It wasn't entirely clear to me where to document this policy. docs, guides, and tools directory all seem to provide how-to guides and explainers. The GC and TC charters definitely contain policies, but neither seemed a good fit for this. Similarly, the README has a calendar section but it is more focused on helping people find meetings than it is on policing them. I created a policies directory in order to clarify that this is a policy and not just a suggestion, and also to make it easy to find. If this should be documented somewhere else, please let me know and I'm happy to move it, however I think we should have a more clear distinction between what is a rule and what is a guide or suggestion anyway eventually.

[mtwo]

I'm supportive of this, though I'm curious what others think

[svrnm]

+1 for having a policies folder, that makes it much clearer what this is about

[mx-psi]

I'm supportive of this, but I don't think this solves the problem.

Zoom still doesn't have any tools to deal with this in a satisfactory way and repeated reports and communication with Zoom support has resulted in unworkable suggestions such as "enable Meeting room" or tedious alternatives such as placing the burden on maintainers.

So, TL;DR: I guess it's good to write this down explicitly, but I would like to continue the discussion to see if there are any alternative mechanisms for enforcement

[dyladan]

I'm supportive of this, but I don't think this solves the problem.

Zoom still doesn't have any tools to deal with this in a satisfactory way and repeated reports and communication with Zoom support has resulted in unworkable suggestions such as "enable Meeting room" or tedious alternatives such as placing the burden on maintainers.

So, TL;DR: I guess it's good to write this down explicitly, but I would like to continue the discussion to see if there are any alternative mechanisms for enforcement

I'll unlink the issue so it isn't closed

[svrnm]

I think we have enough approvals for this PR to be merged, but there are 2 open suggestions by @trask, can you take a look at them @dyladan ?

[dyladan]

I think we have enough approvals for this PR to be merged, but there are 2 open suggestions by @trask, can you take a look at them @dyladan ?

Sorry it took so long to get back to. I'm not often looking at this repo these days. The comment from @trask changes the substance of the requirement IMO so I think it should be discussed. Is it ok to have local recording tools that don't join separately from the user? It is obviously hard/impossible to enforce. If we're only worried about the disruption caused by non-person tools joining a call, I would accept the change. But the motivations laid out in the PR are more about data governance and preventing unauthorized recordings. As I said above, we have limited ability to enforce it, but I think I would keep the wording I already have if thats ok with you @trask

[alolita]

lgtm

[mx-psi]

I am okay with the current wording of the document, we can always make it less restrictive later if the wording causes issues for any specific person

[svrnm]

This has 5 GC members approving, and based on this comment the outstanding discussion is non blocking and we will keep the current wording.