[OSGeo-Conf] Video Recording FOSS4G

[michael terner]

Thanks Cameron & Eli.

I too am intrigued by Cameron's "crowd sourcing" approaching. Could it be
as simple as finding a suitable platform, and paying the subscription cost?
Again, Astrid proposed that a video committee be established to do things
like:

   - Identify best practices
   - Foster a relationship with a "regular supplier" (affordable) that can
   provide what's needed
   - And, potentially look at new approaches such as the crowd soruce

As with Eli's and Til's comments, mostly I'm for doing things that help
reduce stress and cost uncertainty for the LOC, while recognizing the
videoing is a big, potentially expensive task. And help from OSGeo -
whether from a technical team, or in the form of financial support - would
be very helpful.

MT

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:08 PM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Thanks for adding it to the Cookbook.
>
> > 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.
>
> This could be interesting.
>
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Videos
> >
> > Cameron
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
>
> I'll also add that the LOC is already very busy running a conference.
> Also simultaneously running a sophisticated video program just piles
> on work.
>
> > 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.
>
> Exactly correct!
>
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.)
> > 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.
> > 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."
>
> All this really covers it!  A great write up.
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Just for reference, 2014 PDX streamed all sessions live and also video
> recorded them.  Those videos can be accessed right from the schedule,
> http://2014.foss4g.org/schedule/sessions/index.html
>
> 2015 Seoul, also has their videos indexed from the schedule.  I don't
> remember if they live streamed.
>
> https://www.meci.co.kr/societyevent/FOSS4G2015/program/program_1.asp?sMenu=pro1
>
> Both 2014 and 2015 are on Vimeo.  https://vimeo.com/foss4g  TIB in
> Hanover seems like a safe long term storage place and hopefully they
> all get archived there.  It is difficult to gauge which videos will be
> popular.  Lots of the 2014 normal sessions have ~80 views but there
> are also a lot with 400+
>
>
> >> 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'm generally not in favor of adding more requirements on the LOCs.
> Especially ones that further stress an uncertain budget.
>
>
> >>
> >> I’d prefer to leave recording as a strongly desired but not mandatory
> >> requirement (also seek clarity on whether all sessions will  be
> recorded)
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



-- 
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180915/cfb3992c/attachment-0001.html>