<div dir="ltr"><snip><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div><div class="im"><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>My reasoning is as follows;</div>
<div>
<ul><li>Setting up for a conference consumes a person full time for at least a week, if not more before the conference and a week after. </li>
<li>There is also a lot of demand for people with the correct experience, they could be doing a paid gig instead.<br></li>
<li>Many have already purchased the equipment needed and invested money into the setup.</li>
<li>Giving back to people is the right thing to do.</li>
</ul><div>Thoughts, ideas, rejections?</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div></div></div></blockquote><div style><snip></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>"Giving back" is an argument to use Next Day Video specifically because they use Free Open Source Software, but that is a divisive argument. I'd rather we not devolve into arguments about exactly how "free" is "free" and exactly how much this company or that company is "doing the right thing".</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Giving back is an argument to use for people who are willing to provide time and effort outside charging for every hour.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, I'm pretty sure that NextDay Video has never charged Linux Australia "market rates". You're not giving back to company that charges you 150k and doesn't deliver until 2 years later.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div style>Arguing about how "free is free" and "doing the right thing" is exactly what we will need to consider.</div><div><br></div><div style>A point I've yet to raise is that putting the videos YouTube is a positive benefit to Linux Australia (from the exposure) and the community (because they can actually find the videos) but is obviously not a "free (as in speech) solution".</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Don't get me wrong - I want to use Free Open Source Software for the process. But that was exactly the decision that led to LCA 2010 using the video company they did - and that ended up producing the videos about two years late. Using "Giving back to people" as a way of saying "actually we should just use Next Day Video" is a dangerous argument, in my opinion.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>See above.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div></div><div>Personally, I think each LCA is going to choose whether they use a company to handle recording the talks, do it all themselves, or some combination of the two. Obviously, the purpose of this list is to try to make it easier for a conference to do the process themselves. This saves money and gives back to the community too.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Agreed. </div><div style><br></div><div style>Lets have the argument once here and then move on rather than having it every time a conference wants to do video.</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>Tim</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>