Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:57:48 -0800
From:      Royce Williams <royce.williams@gmail.com>
To:        Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com>
Cc:        Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: On cooperative work [Was: Re: newbus' ivar's limitation..]
Message-ID:  <CA%2BE3k92PMPoc0P6q5ESu%2BE2B8wNd8j53Mr8D0h%2ByAQavQn4WbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1uM8LoihRwXPFqJfMT%2B36aPeHOqLyaadUYVr5VvzkA3gw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CACqU3MUh1XPScRHNc-ivOYLmbG0_UqpwBNWeoPA84uSOESH_bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCHxpTfc%2Bb5zgiX2NheaQN1LcJXBRubef4_GAYCy_pb2g@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MWo=ieaduuwZDF6SfzUUS5y1qzP5e2Ddg6Aphnz_O2PJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCDpD3rnQFwiOSGofP9cPCxC5Zo%2BPLfxALY8pnE=2HQMA@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MW2JEtDK0Ngdf_Br6D%2BVvdU1B9LmN0fm0F9=bG0f2iW4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomhHxG8t9Sw7de%2BzUnbz0O5GSY4ifpHFtCb9JS_zS0rBA@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MUKGcy8rNz0FcZLVat49BmRLD3hVKX%2BOXxkzwRDugKtAw@mail.gmail.com> <612DA8A3-121E-4E72-9E5B-F3CBA9DEB7F7@bsdimp.com> <CACqU3MU-WyNFf5UZGx15m_HWBx_6W272qkfqHHJ8G7v%2BJCK2Sw@mail.gmail.com> <FAE07410-CA99-4061-856F-799DB9D225BE@bsdimp.com> <501A0258.4010101@FreeBSD.org> <CAN6yY1svYnrkbtW7ts4TF-3E0CoPY_YxbOLMmGJv6RzSUwbqEQ@mail.gmail.com> <45815622-3CE2-42E3-B118-702AA70C7E4C@samsco.org> <CCDCF5F5-B408-4D56-B0F9-910F029D8587@gmail.com> <501AB08E.8020008@FreeBSD.org> <501B1D3A.6080501@freebsd.org> <CAN6yY1uM8LoihRwXPFqJfMT%2B36aPeHOqLyaadUYVr5VvzkA3gw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BE3k92PMPoc0P6q5ESu%2BE2B8wNd8j53Mr8D0h%2ByAQavQn4WbA>