<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Videos">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Videos</a><br>
</p>
Cameron<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/9/18 3:59 am, michael terner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFk2e0+LMp5=KHvuHZM3_3nTO9f7j1=y+PYWYRLVu=+9kGtHZw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Steven
et al:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Thanks
for relaying the message on the videoing. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">To
all:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">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 <i>directly support </i>the
funding of videoing:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><i>Full
disclosure: </i>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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="">
<ol style="">
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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 <i>made it look easy.</i> And in the
end, they were affordable.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">The primary
goal of an LOC is to provide the best possible
experience for <i>those who attend the event. </i>Hosting
a FOSS4G is first and foremost <i>for the visitors to
your city</i> and your paying customers and sponsors.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Yes, Steven is
correct, in cities like Boston, there are limited
options for videoing. At our venue, the venue <i>required</i>
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.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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 <i>entire conference.</i> And then, after
the conference, we had huge piles of video to edit and
merge (i.e., slides + speaker video) and upload.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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 <i>after
the conference.</i>)</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">From my POV, <b>requiring
videoing</b> while providing <u>no</u> 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.</font></li>
<li style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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, <i>to
its own great benefit</i>.</font></li>
</ol>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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 <i>at the conference</i> 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
<i>more people to Dar.</i></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><i><br>
</i></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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."</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Most sincerely, and over
& out from the Dar es Salaam airport on my way back to
Boston...</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">MT</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_-4808324397058902602moz-cite-prefix">Am
14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><snip>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div>
<ul class="m_-4808324397058902602MailOutline">
<li>Prior to Bonn there was no large scale video
recording to my knowledge. At Nottingham we had
Audio recording</li>
<li>Bonn set a very high standard thanks to the team
of external specialist volunteers who took on the
task</li>
<li>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</li>
<li>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?)</li>
</ul>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> <span
class="m_-4808324397058902602Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;border-spacing:0px">______<br>
Steven<br>
<br>
</span> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>