Re: Workshop and meeting requirements

Oh, and forgot other 2/3rds of Mike's question - bandwidth requirement I'm
no expert on, but yes, there's probably some cost and definitely some
preparation with venue there.  Manpower should be minimal; you don't need a
full-time cameraperson.


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> To respond to Mike on:
> >affordability: What kind of capital investment, bandwidth requirement,
> and on-side manpower requirements are we talking about to do a TPAC-size
> meeting with proper A/V?
>
> Capital investment?  For single-presenter sessions, above what's already
> used, basically a good webcam.  Actually, I've done this quite successfully
> (for one-way) with Hangouts running on someone's laptop set up near the
> presenter.
>
> For WG meetings - which are more important, even - some conference room
> microphones and webcams.  Or grab a pre-packaged system<https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for-meetings.html>.
>  (No, I'm not a salesperson.  But that's a good package.)
>
> I disagree, btw, with the idea that video is 1) expensive to do well
> *enough*, and 2) of little value.  There is a lot of value in feeling
> immersed in the meeting that's not immediately apparent until you've done
> it.  It's also radically helpful to have screencasting, and although it is
> not idea for running video in a slide deck or anything, it's far better
> than having to manually walk through the slide deck and guess what slide
> you're on.  I care less about boiling the ocean of getting everything on
> the same page than having the data streams available.
>
> I'm not saying we need to start with video; I just think it is an
> important part of effective remote participation.  We do need to fix the
> other challenges in remote participation first.  For the Shenzhen AB
> meeting, for example - there was a phone and an IRC channel.  The phone did
> not have a conference mic, so half the time I could not hear well what was
> going on; and despite the valiant efforts of our tireless IRC scribe,
> trying to follow along in the IRC minutes is not a good way to interact.
>  Additionally, in most meetings we're not used to the "speak where the mic
> can pick you up" concept, nor are chairs used to having to MC that.
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 16, 2014 at 10:11:58 AM, Sylvain Galineau (galineau@adobe.com)
>> wrote:
>> > > I do not think it is fair to dismiss video by comparing some ideal
>> > utopian solution with the worst possible alternative, especially
>> > when the latter, as described, is in fact significantly worse
>> > than what is routinely used by many of us today. I routinely attend
>> > remote presentations using software that lets me see the speaker's
>> > slides or desktop on most of my screen, video in the corner and
>> > a chat area allowing me to interact with everyone in the room.
>> > It works very well, even with audiences spread across remote
>> > locations. This would at the very least suggest a wide spectrum
>> > of possible options and outcomes.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Sylvain. I also regularly "attend" conferences remotely and
>> really appreciate live video (even when it's one way). I also know that
>> when we ran the RICG's meet-up the video feed we provided was hugely
>> appreciated by the community and quite a few people logged in to watch
>> (despite us having some technical issues initially, and despite many people
>> having to get up at 4am!). Again, even though the video feed was one-way,
>> it still spawned a great deal of real time discussion in IRC.
>>
>> --
>> Marcos Caceres
>>
>>
>>
>