Re: On cooperative work [Was: Re: newbus' ivar's limitation..]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman <kob6558_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer <julian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>>
>>> I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
>>> school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
>>> "the right people," even though I was told repeatedly that it wasn't
>>> possible, actually highlights a big part of the problem.
>>
>> bandwidth was limited and a single 1:1 skype connection was all we really
>> could do.
>>
>> I did broadcast sessions a few years ago using the apple quicktime server
>> but it was a lot of work and I think one person looked at part of one
>> session.
>>
>>> Doug
>
> First, too many of these posts assume way too much. I don't think
> anyone should be thinking of any sort of what is commonly called
> "teleconferencing". That would be nice, but is far more complex and
> expensive, both in bandwidth and equipment, then should be considered
> as a starting point.
>
> I suggest the starting point is a webpage with a link to the slides
> being presented and a simple audio stream. This is trivially possible
> with a FreeBSD system and open-source software. A bandwidth of only
> about 70kbps would be needed. Less with reasonable codec choice.
> Several streams could be broadcast via a single, unicast stream to a
> well connected server which woild then stream to end users It might be
> augmented with jabber other open IM technology with someone at the
> meeting if procedures for this could be agreed to. (Some vetting is
> desirable, but will result in calls of censorship.)
>
> For small rooms, microphones are fairly easy to handle and one-way
> streams don't require echo cancellation.
> As costs for video come down, that might be something to think about
> some day, but is not required to allow remote "attendance".
>
> Of course, unless this is publicized, no one will come (which
> eliminates any technical issues).  :-)

Nail -> head.  Everything that Kevin just said.  With so much
collective technical experience and intelligence available, we can
work out the minor kinks in a solved problem (one-to-many audio and
slide sharing).  Getting the word out is also a solved problem.  Both
are very high-leverage -- and very good for the project.

If we think about live BSDCan streaming as a fun project with classic
hack value, instead of "an amorphous cloud of undoability", things
will just come together naturally.

The next action I see is calling for boots-on-the-ground volunteers to
coordinate the local setup, and maybe a wiki page to capture the state
of the project.

Royce