Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

Till Adams-3
Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

stevenfeldman
I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board. I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space for these events within the programme. 

When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.

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


On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

Till Adams-3

Hi Steven,

thanks for finishing the document!

I totally agree in the fact, that on the one hand we can't increase our requirements more and more, on the other hand we want to keep the price as low as possible. Somewhere there has to be a balance and this is lived by the LOCs.

As long as the bidders clearly describe how they deal with the individual things, the final decision lies with the selection of the proposal and with that, it is still in the hands of OSGeo.

So I would leave the video section(s) as they are and finish the document *now*

Till



Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board. I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space for these events within the programme. 

When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.

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


On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

guidos
I did one final pass through the document and made some more updates and comments.

The only big change I see that is needed is around the workshop information. It think Bring your own laptops is now the prefered setup allowing workshop venues to be varied, but this is my opinion.

That is it for me. I hope that this is helpful.

If I totally missed the boat on this and you all feel that the language was already finalized, I apologize in advance and am ok with having all my recomendations/comments dropped.

;)

Thanks to everyone who has taken ownership of this document and made the final choices.. ;)

Guido

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks for finishing the document!

I totally agree in the fact, that on the one hand we can't increase our requirements more and more, on the other hand we want to keep the price as low as possible. Somewhere there has to be a balance and this is lived by the LOCs.

As long as the bidders clearly describe how they deal with the individual things, the final decision lies with the selection of the proposal and with that, it is still in the hands of OSGeo.

So I would leave the video section(s) as they are and finish the document *now*

Till



Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board. I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space for these events within the programme. 

When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.

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


On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

michael terner-2
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
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

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks for finishing the document!

I totally agree in the fact, that on the one hand we can't increase our requirements more and more, on the other hand we want to keep the price as low as possible. Somewhere there has to be a balance and this is lived by the LOCs.

As long as the bidders clearly describe how they deal with the individual things, the final decision lies with the selection of the proposal and with that, it is still in the hands of OSGeo.

So I would leave the video section(s) as they are and finish the document *now*

Till



Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board. I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space for these events within the programme. 

When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.

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


On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Video Recording FOSS4G

Cameron Shorter

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

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.
  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

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Video Recording FOSS4G

Eli Adam
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Video Recording FOSS4G

michael terner-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by michael terner-2
Michael has summed this up way better than I could, i agree with him 100%
______
Steven


On 14 Sep 2018, at 18:59, michael terner <[hidden email]> 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

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

thanks for finishing the document!

I totally agree in the fact, that on the one hand we can't increase our requirements more and more, on the other hand we want to keep the price as low as possible. Somewhere there has to be a balance and this is lived by the LOCs.

As long as the bidders clearly describe how they deal with the individual things, the final decision lies with the selection of the proposal and with that, it is still in the hands of OSGeo.

So I would leave the video section(s) as they are and finish the document *now*

Till



Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board. I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space for these events within the programme. 

When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.

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


On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
Hi List,

Apologies for the late thoughts to this thread, I've been offline for a
while.

While the draft RfP does tentatively cover Human Rights in relation to
the host country's human-rights activities, there doesn't seem to be any
larger goal or coverage of ethical/sustainable provisions so I thought
I'd make some suggestions.

To expand, I'd like to suggest on the Human Rights front that there are
more issues that can be covered and fairly simply too. For example, the
last two FOSS4G events I went to had t-shirts - they seem to be a common
theme - assuming the next one does too, what provision would they make
to source these garments ethically? A lot of cotton is grown in
Uzbekistan by basically slave-labour, and the then used in factories
that have almost-as-bad conditions. Similar human-rights issues surround
things like chocolate and coffee, which is why there are a lot of
"FairTrade" and similar badges in those domains. There is actually an
"easy" (if lazy) way to fix this: simply make sure such things are
"FairTrade" or similar. Sure they often cost more, but that's in part
because you're no-longer using child/slave/woefully-underpaid labour,
and not-exploiting-people costs money. So for the RfP: What provision
will the conference make to ethically source its foodstuffs/clothing/etc?

The other obvious component is the green-credentials (sustainability) of
the proposed conference. Questions might include: Is it in a place with
good public transport or do you need to take taxis everywhere? How
accessible is the conference via non-flying (and will you give a
discount to non-flying delegates (as an idea))? What (if-any) green
credentials does the proposed venue have? Do you have carbon-neutral
plans for the conference? Will foodstuff be locally sourced? Etc, etc.

I can probably offer more and/or flesh these out if desired.

Of course, all of the above also requires that the conference committee
use them as part of the evaluation criteria.

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 14/09/2018 10:49, Till Adams wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I tried to resolve all the comments in
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#
>
>
> and ended up with 2 remaining.
>
> One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
> scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
> potential funding of the video recording.
>
> Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
> export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
> the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.
>
> Many thanks to all contributions!
>
> Till
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

stevenfeldman
The RfP was finalised and published on Friday. 

These are good suggestions and I would encourage you to ask questions of the various LOC’s during the question phases. 

______
Steven


On 17 Sep 2018, at 14:04, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi List,

Apologies for the late thoughts to this thread, I've been offline for a while.

While the draft RfP does tentatively cover Human Rights in relation to the host country's human-rights activities, there doesn't seem to be any larger goal or coverage of ethical/sustainable provisions so I thought I'd make some suggestions.

To expand, I'd like to suggest on the Human Rights front that there are more issues that can be covered and fairly simply too. For example, the last two FOSS4G events I went to had t-shirts - they seem to be a common theme - assuming the next one does too, what provision would they make to source these garments ethically? A lot of cotton is grown in Uzbekistan by basically slave-labour, and the then used in factories that have almost-as-bad conditions. Similar human-rights issues surround things like chocolate and coffee, which is why there are a lot of "FairTrade" and similar badges in those domains. There is actually an "easy" (if lazy) way to fix this: simply make sure such things are "FairTrade" or similar. Sure they often cost more, but that's in part because you're no-longer using child/slave/woefully-underpaid labour, and not-exploiting-people costs money. So for the RfP: What provision will the conference make to ethically source its foodstuffs/clothing/etc?

The other obvious component is the green-credentials (sustainability) of the proposed conference. Questions might include: Is it in a place with good public transport or do you need to take taxis everywhere? How accessible is the conference via non-flying (and will you give a discount to non-flying delegates (as an idea))? What (if-any) green credentials does the proposed venue have? Do you have carbon-neutral plans for the conference? Will foodstuff be locally sourced? Etc, etc.

I can probably offer more and/or flesh these out if desired.

Of course, all of the above also requires that the conference committee use them as part of the evaluation criteria.

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 14/09/2018 10:49, Till Adams wrote:
Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

Cameron Shorter

Hi Jonathan,

You have brought up good points, and you can still have an impact on future conferences, including this coming one, if you can add a section to the FOSS4G Handbook [1]. Ideally, source an existing purchasing best practices guide rather than write your own. It is more creditable, will likely be better quality than you could produce by yourself, and should save you time.

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


On 17/9/18 11:48 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
The RfP was finalised and published on Friday. 

These are good suggestions and I would encourage you to ask questions of the various LOC’s during the question phases. 

______
Steven


On 17 Sep 2018, at 14:04, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi List,

Apologies for the late thoughts to this thread, I've been offline for a while.

While the draft RfP does tentatively cover Human Rights in relation to the host country's human-rights activities, there doesn't seem to be any larger goal or coverage of ethical/sustainable provisions so I thought I'd make some suggestions.

To expand, I'd like to suggest on the Human Rights front that there are more issues that can be covered and fairly simply too. For example, the last two FOSS4G events I went to had t-shirts - they seem to be a common theme - assuming the next one does too, what provision would they make to source these garments ethically? A lot of cotton is grown in Uzbekistan by basically slave-labour, and the then used in factories that have almost-as-bad conditions. Similar human-rights issues surround things like chocolate and coffee, which is why there are a lot of "FairTrade" and similar badges in those domains. There is actually an "easy" (if lazy) way to fix this: simply make sure such things are "FairTrade" or similar. Sure they often cost more, but that's in part because you're no-longer using child/slave/woefully-underpaid labour, and not-exploiting-people costs money. So for the RfP: What provision will the conference make to ethically source its foodstuffs/clothing/etc?

The other obvious component is the green-credentials (sustainability) of the proposed conference. Questions might include: Is it in a place with good public transport or do you need to take taxis everywhere? How accessible is the conference via non-flying (and will you give a discount to non-flying delegates (as an idea))? What (if-any) green credentials does the proposed venue have? Do you have carbon-neutral plans for the conference? Will foodstuff be locally sourced? Etc, etc.

I can probably offer more and/or flesh these out if desired.

Of course, all of the above also requires that the conference committee use them as part of the evaluation criteria.

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 14/09/2018 10:49, Till Adams wrote:
Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

Till Adams-3

Jonathan,

when editing the handbook, please make sure to follow the guidelines on how to edit it:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Editing_this_document

;-)

Thanks, Till


Am 18.09.2018 um 12:43 schrieb Cameron Shorter:

Hi Jonathan,

You have brought up good points, and you can still have an impact on future conferences, including this coming one, if you can add a section to the FOSS4G Handbook [1]. Ideally, source an existing purchasing best practices guide rather than write your own. It is more creditable, will likely be better quality than you could produce by yourself, and should save you time.

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


On 17/9/18 11:48 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
The RfP was finalised and published on Friday. 

These are good suggestions and I would encourage you to ask questions of the various LOC’s during the question phases. 

______
Steven


On 17 Sep 2018, at 14:04, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi List,

Apologies for the late thoughts to this thread, I've been offline for a while.

While the draft RfP does tentatively cover Human Rights in relation to the host country's human-rights activities, there doesn't seem to be any larger goal or coverage of ethical/sustainable provisions so I thought I'd make some suggestions.

To expand, I'd like to suggest on the Human Rights front that there are more issues that can be covered and fairly simply too. For example, the last two FOSS4G events I went to had t-shirts - they seem to be a common theme - assuming the next one does too, what provision would they make to source these garments ethically? A lot of cotton is grown in Uzbekistan by basically slave-labour, and the then used in factories that have almost-as-bad conditions. Similar human-rights issues surround things like chocolate and coffee, which is why there are a lot of "FairTrade" and similar badges in those domains. There is actually an "easy" (if lazy) way to fix this: simply make sure such things are "FairTrade" or similar. Sure they often cost more, but that's in part because you're no-longer using child/slave/woefully-underpaid labour, and not-exploiting-people costs money. So for the RfP: What provision will the conference make to ethically source its foodstuffs/clothing/etc?

The other obvious component is the green-credentials (sustainability) of the proposed conference. Questions might include: Is it in a place with good public transport or do you need to take taxis everywhere? How accessible is the conference via non-flying (and will you give a discount to non-flying delegates (as an idea))? What (if-any) green credentials does the proposed venue have? Do you have carbon-neutral plans for the conference? Will foodstuff be locally sourced? Etc, etc.

I can probably offer more and/or flesh these out if desired.

Of course, all of the above also requires that the conference committee use them as part of the evaluation criteria.

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 14/09/2018 10:49, Till Adams wrote:
Dear all,

I tried to resolve all the comments in

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#


and ended up with 2 remaining.

One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
potential funding of the video recording.

Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.

Many thanks to all contributions!

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Video Recording FOSS4G

Drees, Bastian
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
Dear all,

I would like to add the TIB perspective on video recordings .

> 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.  

TIB already hosts the recordings from 2013 - 2016:
2013: https://av.tib.eu/series/68/foss4g+nottingham+2013 
2014: https://av.tib.eu/series/336/foss4g+2014+portland
2015: https://av.tib.eu/series/169/foss4g+seoul+2015
2016: https://av.tib.eu/series/253/foss4g+bonn+2016

We are happy to host recordings from other years as well. I was in contact with some people about recordings from 2009 and 2017. However, the problem we have is that we need the video files + metadata + license information. In many cases at least one of the three parts is missing and we cannot publish the videos for that reason. If the videos are published on vimeo, we are able to download them from there and get the metadata provided on vimeo. Still, if there is no license information (as it's the case for the 2017 recordings) we cannot publish the videos. We need either a signed agreement from OSGeo about the license or you have to provide the license information (in a clearly structured way) on vimeo.

So please make sure that if you upload any videos on any platform to provide unambiguous license information including the version and a link to the actual license text, e.g. CC Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  (another problem is conflicting license information, e.g. in the video and in the metadata).

I am happy to help if you have any questions.

Best regards
Bastian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Conference_dev [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Eli Adam
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. September 2018 02:09
An: Cameron Shorter
Cc: OSGeo-Conf
Betreff: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Video Recording FOSS4G

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev