[OSGeo-Conf] Video Recording FOSS4G

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 15:56:10 PDT 2018

Thanks Michael and Steven for this feedback on videos. I've picked out 
some of this content into the FOSS4G Cookbook [1], and linked back to 
this email thread. Would be good to update as you see fit.

One method I'd be interested to see experimented with is a "scrappy" 
cheap alternative, where attendees are invited to record the sessions 
they attend on their mobile phones, then upload to a central server 
afterwards. This could be used especially for Local or Regional events 
which don't have a budget for professional recording.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Videos


On 15/9/18 3:59 am, michael terner wrote:
> Steven et al:
> Thanks for relaying the message on the videoing.
> To all:
> Indeed, providing the "LOC perspective on videoing" has been a bit of 
> a personal cause as it was an extremely challenging part of Boston. I 
> have posted to the Conference Dev on this previously and will continue 
> to do so, as I believe it is an important and challenging issue that 
> other LOCs are likely to face. Indeed, both Steven and Til have 
> conveyed the core elements of the challenge. Here are a few additional 
> points and a rationale for having OSGeo /directly support /the funding 
> of videoing:
> /Full disclosure: /As a member of the Conference Dev Committee and as 
> Charter Member, I fully support the goal of videoing as much of a 
> FOSS4G conference as is possible. As a conference chair, the calculus 
> is a bit more difficult.
>  1. Videoing is not easy, nor inexpensive. It is to the Bonn Team's
>     great credit, and also to their supplier Kaos Klub's (sic) credit
>     that they /made it look easy./ And in the end, they were affordable.
>  2. The Boston Team was so impressed with Kaos Klub that we tried
>     earnestly to bring them to Boston. Ultimately, they were not able
>     to commit to supporting us.
>  3. The primary goal of an LOC is to provide the best possible
>     experience for /those who attend the event. /Hosting a FOSS4G is
>     first and foremost /for the visitors to your city/ and your paying
>     customers and sponsors.
>  4. Videoing adds great value to OSGeo in being able to keep the
>     presentations in perpetuity and to use them in a marketing and
>     educational context. Equally, OSGeo has a broader mandate than an
>     LOC to widen the reach of a FOSS4G conference to people who are
>     unable to attend.
>  5. Yes, Steven is correct, in cities like Boston, there are limited
>     options for videoing. At our venue, the venue /required/ we use
>     their in-house video for the main, plenary room (3 screens,
>     multiple cameras, etc. etc.). The cost of that was in excess of
>     $50,000. The estimated cost to video 11 rooms concurrently was
>     also in excess of $50,000 (although we were free to pursue other
>     options for those rooms), so the overall budget would have
>     exceeded $100,000.
>  6. While we knew the budget, we needed to make a decisions on the
>     videoing approach 3 months before the conference. That is, at a
>     time when we had only 500+ registrants and knew that we needed 800
>     registrations to break even. At that time, we were unable to make
>     a commitment to spend $50,000 that we did not have in hand. And so
>     we chose to do-it-yourself (DIY), which was estimated to cost
>     $15,000 - $20,000 including buying the equipment.
>  7. Guido led a team that did incredible work and we successfully
>     captured video of 80%+ of the sessions DIY and with volunteers
>     operating the equipment. But Guido's team was extremely stressed,
>     almost to the point of breaking during the /entire
>     conference./ And then, after the conference, we had huge piles of
>     video to edit and merge (i.e., slides + speaker video) and upload.
>  8. But in the end, we achieved a very healthy surplus. Had we known
>     in advance that we would have that surplus, there is no possible
>     way we would have chosen DIY. We would have spent the $50,000.
>     (And indeed, we paid for processing and uploading the video by
>     using a contractor /after the conference./)
>  9. From my POV, *requiring videoing* while providing _no_ direct
>     financial support, and as Til points out, at the same time pushing
>     LOCs hard to maintain affordability, is neither fair, nor
>     equitable to the LOC. Videoing is in OSGeo's direct interests (far
>     more than the LOC's) and if it's very important, than OSGeo should
>     be prepared to pay for it.
> 10. The scheme that Steven and I proposed in an earlier draft is a
>     fair approach that would have made an enormous difference to
>     Boston. Basically, OSGeo loans the LOC the money to pay for
>     videoing (or a large proportion of the videoing) and then the
>     first bit of the surplus is used to pay back that loan. If there
>     is no surplus, then loan is not repayed, and OSGeo does in fact
>     pay for the videoing, /to its own great benefit/.
> If OSGeo is not willing to pay for the videoing, how is it fair to 
> have the LOC (or rather, the paying attendees) pay for it? Indeed, in 
> Dar es Salaam, the DLOC made the intentional choice of only videoing 
> the plenary sessions and saving money. Money that was used to broaden 
> attendance /at the conference/ through discount tickets for local 
> people. Part of that decision was informed by looking at the Boston 
> video viewing stats. Indeed, our keynotes had many hundreds of views, 
> but a typical session had 20 - 30 viewings over the past year. That is 
> non-trivial, but "how much" is that worth? I believe the DLOC made the 
> right call in erring on bringing /more people to Dar./
> /
> /
> I recognize and respect that this issue is not resolved. And the best 
> possible solution (which Astrid described to Steven and myself) would 
> be some kind of "video team" (or other resources) that could be 
> deployed to FOSS4G conferences (where ever they may be held) and that 
> could provide the videoing services at an affordable cost. I certainly 
> hope that is what happens at Bucharest. But if such a solution is not 
> possible, then I believe it is fair and appropriate that OSGeo invest 
> in the videoing that it believes is important enough to state as a 
> requirement in the RfP. Since it does not appear that OSGeo is yet 
> comfortable making that commitment, then I would concur with Steven 
> that video should not be made a "hard requirements" and should rather 
> be listed as a "strong preference."
> I am confident we will find a good long term approach for this 
> challenge. But the challenge is real and needs some action from OSGeo.
> Most sincerely, and over & out from the Dar es Salaam airport on my 
> way back to Boston...
> MT
>     Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>>     <snip>
>>     The funding of video recording is going to have to be left
>>     unresolved. At the moment all that we are saying is that we want
>>     recording and that OSGeo “may” provide a loan. The provision of
>>     recording is quite contentious amongst recent chairs:
>>       * Prior to Bonn there was no large scale video recording to my
>>         knowledge. At Nottingham we had Audio recording
>>       * Bonn set a very high standard thanks to the team of external
>>         specialist volunteers who took on the task
>>       * Boston did an incredible job using home built systems but it
>>         was an enormous strain on the LOC and the volunteers to get
>>         this done. An external team would have cost close on $100k I
>>         believe (MT?) and that would have added $80+ to the ticket
>>         price or eliminated most of the surplus returned to OSGeo
>>       * Dar only recorded the keynotes and some sessions in the main
>>         hall, I believe that this was due to a combination of cost
>>         and organisation (MI?)
>>     People outside of the LOC are always keen that the proceedings
>>     are recorded and made available to a wider audience, I understand
>>     why. The LOC may well be concerned at the cost of hiring in a
>>     professional team to record up to 9 streams of content or the
>>     administrative burden of trying to record using an in-house team
>>     of volunteers.
>>     I’d prefer to leave recording as a strongly desired but not
>>     mandatory requirement (also seek clarity on whether all sessions
>>     will  be recorded) and remove the section on an OSGeo loan as
>>     that will make matters more complex. Others will have a different
>>     view. We need to make a decision and get the RfP out. I can edit
>>     the video sections of the RfP once there is a decision.
>>     ______
>>     Steven

Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180915/80e08797/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list