[Cbr2021] Hybrid conference versus online only justification

[Miles Goodhew]

Chad,
   Thanks for that. There are a lot of good points in there and I really
appreciate the work you've put into it.
   One of the things we were going to try and thrash-through at tonight's
meeting is "what would a hybrid conference look like?" As I see it there's
three basic options:
* An essentially "in-person" event with an online streaming option added on
(However that's budgeted) - I *think* this is what both you and Paul have
put cases for (Correct me if I'm wrong). This would mean it's "actually
something to do with Canberra".
* An online conference with a bunch of physical "watch parties" - This is
what I've been trying to describe and define on and off. I'm not wedded to
this concept (far from it) - I just think it needs to be at least
considered as a contrast. This option really precludes the conference
having anything Canberra specific in it.
* Some full cross-product of [(online, offline) * (speaker, attendee,
team)]. This is a "technical possibility", but there's a *lot* of undefined
extra work there. There's also got to be a net increase of budget and/or
ticket cost for less immediately perceived benefit to attendees. You've
essentially got to pay full price for in-person venue and streaming
infrastructure (+ about the same amount of organisation/sessions/team
costs). We'd have to pay for this with the same pool of ticket and
sponsorship money (So it's more of a financial challenge). This sounds like
a really risky and complicated option to me (But it'd be amazing if it
worked).

Looking forward to talking it all through tonight (Have a look at the
meeting notes doc and update/add anything you think is needed).

Thanks again,

M0les.


On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 08:33, Matthew Chadwick via CBR2021 <
cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> From what I can tell, there are 3 major arguments that have been put
> forward.
>
> 1. The coronavirus
>
> I understand the concern around the coronavirus, however things are
> looking reasonably well under control presently. There is currently no
> reason we cannot expect things will be more under control in 10 months from
> now. A hybrid conference mitigates this risk as effectively as an online
> only conference by taking advantage of the best elements of both conference
> styles.
>
> Part of the success of this years LCA can be attributed to the fact that
> there was a conference at all during uncertain times. Now that Australia is
> moving towards something resembling normal, we should start to consider
> models that worked effectively when things were normal. This is already
> evident by other conferences that are using the in person model again, I
> will be attending 2 such conferences shortly (6 March - Crickeycon in
> Brisbane and 9-10 April - B-Sides in Canberra). It is worth noting that
> these events sold out (with one re-opening ticket sales after the sell
> out), I’ll be reaching out to these event organisers after their events for
> a chat.
>
> There are a number of people who will not attend an in person conference
> either because they are unable to or do not want to. There are a number of
> people who are fatigued by the number of virtual conferences and are
> anxious to meet again face to face and network. The hybrid approach
> satisfies both groups, the in person/online only approaches satisfy one
> group at the detriment of the other. While the theme of this years
> conference doesn’t have to be themed “community", this conference is and
> always has been about the community and a hybrid approach extends our reach
> greatly.
>
> To address the final concern about COVID19, let's assume that something
> does go wrong in 6 months time and it is no longer safe to commit to the in
> person component of the conference. A hybrid approach means we can scale up
> the online component and still go forward. If we instead commit to an
> online only conference, we lose the opportunity to host an in person
> conference entirely.
>
> 2. The budget & scheduling
>
> The environment we are in today is very different to that of 2 years ago,
> the budget absolutely needs to be redone regardless of the path forward.
>
> I agree that we need to start making decisions however to suggest that we
> need to be making these decisions within 1-2 months for the speakers is not
> accurate. I have provided a small table below which outlines milestones for
> both the In Person and Online variants of the conference. Call for sessions
> did not open until the end of July at the earliest and didn’t close until
> the 13th of November at the latest. Tickets and prices are also absolutely
> an item to discuss however sales aren’t opened until early October at the
> earliest. We have time to make these decisions.
>
> *Milestone*
> *In person (based on LCA2020)*
> *Online (based on LCA2021)*
> *Call for sessions opened*
> 24 Jul 2019
> 15 Oct 2020
> *Call for sessions extended*
> 28 Jul 2019
> 7 Nov 2020
> *Call for sessions closed*
> 11 Aug 2019
> 13 Nov 2020
> *Ticket sales opened*
> 3 Oct 2019
> 24 Nov 2020
> *Miniconfs announced*
> 17 Oct 2019
> 24 Nov 2020
> *Conference schedule available*
> 23 Oct 2019
> 3 Dec 2020
> *Keynote 1 announced*
> 22 Nov 2019
> 3 Dec 2020
> *Financial assistance available*
> 2 Dec 2019
> 4 Jan 2021
> *Keynote 2 announced*
> 6 Dec 2019
> 15 Dec 2020
> *Keynote 3 announced*
> 17 Dec 2019
> 22 Dec 2020
> *Keynote 4 announced*
> 4 Jan 2020
> Not applicable
> Table 1. In person and online conference milestone comparison.
>
> "It's important to put on an LCA and it's important to LA that it doesn't
> make a huge loss” - I agree Rob, and this is what worries me about the
> online only model. It worked well during uncertain times but it is not the
> right model for how 2022 looks to be shaping up. If we host an online only
> conference I am afraid the conference will fail or be a shadow of its
> former self. I believe it will look undesirable compared to other
> conferences that are returning to a physical location and attendance will
> go down. This will affect our budget.
>
> Given that Crickeycon and B-Sides (in person conferences - with limited or
> no online component when compared to lca2021) both sold out I cannot see
> how hosting a hybrid conference, which can only serve to increase the
> number of participants, would have any trouble breaking even, in fact I
> would expect it would do well. I am of the view that marketing and
> sponsorship opportunities are generally greater for in person conferences
> than online ones, so it stands to reason that a hybrid conference will
> provide more opportunities still.
>
> 3. The workload
>
> A concern appears to be that a hybrid conference will be significantly
> harder than an online only or in person only conference, I am not
> convinced. There is a lot of cross over between the two types of
> conferences. Scheduling will be the same. Streaming/recording may be easier
> due to the ability to use a physical location for the conference. The
> challenge of having to manage volunteers in physically distinct locations
> will be reduced greatly by having the ability to collaborate and work
> together in person. Meanwhile, LCA2021 has demonstrated that some of the
> volunteer functions could probably be done from the other side of the
> planet even with a physical conference room (and it will be easier than it
> was online only). Why aren’t we leveraging our online experience to enhance
> the physical conference and deliver the best of both worlds to our domestic
> (predominantly in-person) and overseas (predominantly remote) audiences and
> speakers.
>
> There will certainly be unique challenges that we can (and should) rise
> to, however there are many aspects of the online conference that are simply
> an extension of a traditional in person conference. Every LCA to date has
> done something better than the last and the hybrid approach is how we can
> improve upon last years experience. I would argue that it is a natural
> evolution of LCA and that an online only conference would simply stifle
> progress. It is inevitable.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chad.
>
> On 23 Feb 2021, at 8:29 am, Rob Bolin via CBR2021 <
> cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for that question.  My position on online-only is based on:
>
> *  While I recognise that vaccines are rolling out around the world, I
> feel there is still too much uncertainty about what could happen.  Bear in
> mind that there are currently 3 recognised covid mutations and the vaccine
> is confirmed to be effective against only 1 (the other 2 are currently
> uncertain).  There may be others that appear between now and January. This
> was certainly the stated position of Norman Swan on ABC24 moments ago (as I
> write this).
>
> *  Approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of usual attendees and probably around half of
> speakers are international.  Assuming that quarantine is still in effect
> (and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be at this stage), attendance
> could result in 5 weeks out of the workplace for a 1 week conference (2
> weeks quarantine coming into Australia, 1 week of LCA and 2 weeks
> quarantine returning home).  This also assumes that lock downs won't be
> happening between Australian states
>
> *  While LCA is 10 months away, speakers will need to put forward
> proposals for papers in a month or two.  I believe that the 5 week period
> above will weigh heavily on international speakers' decisions to put
> forward proposals, reducing proposals to mostly Australian speakers.  Not
> that we don't have an outstanding crop of Australian developers, but as
> conference organisers, we want the best of the best talks.
>
> *  Assuming that we utilise technology to remove the issues with
> quarantine and international travel, and stream international speakers into
> the venue, we all agree that we will need to maintain an online presence
> even for a face to face conference.  Given the success of this year's LCA,
> I suspect that quite a number of the potential attendees would still opt
> for streaming the conference, rather than attending in person.  Personally,
> I know I would (though I will admit to being an avowed introvert).
>
> *  The budget, as initially approved by LA, was built around an attendance
> of approximately 570 attendees to break even.  One third of these were
> expected to be professionals, which contributed roughly 60% of the delegate
> contribution to the budget.  Given uncertainty and potentially 5 weeks out
> of the office, I doubt many bosses would be happy for these professionals
> to attend in person, despite the wishes of the staff member (I'm happy to
> be corrected about this, if any one wants to ask their boss now).
>
> *  Given the budget issue above, we would need to adjust the budget (I
> believe Neill is on to this now), but we would need to be careful not to
> boost the online ticket price to subsidise the in-person price, which will
> generate push back - after all, the face to face has social activities that
> online wouldn't participate in (even if we don't have any).
>
> *  Another point about the budget, I believe that if given the option of
> streaming verses attendance in person, hobbyists may also opt for the
> cheaper option (I certainly would).  After all, we (hobbyists) don't have a
> corporate sponsor that will send us along, so we have to find the
> conference fee plus accommodation, travel and food.  Personally, that's a
> major reason why I volunteer as many years as I can - free entry into the
> conference and I don't mind helping out.
>
> *  A hybrid model introduces additional issues and work versus a face to
> face only or online only conference.  From past experience, a face to face
> conference is a lot of work (which we all signed on for, so I was happy to
> do it), however Sae Ra and Joel advise that there are new and different
> challenges inherent in an online conference.  What is currently being
> proposed actually combines both.  Are we up for an increase in work load?
> For a start, we would need volunteers in both the online and real world
> spheres.  Granted some of their work, I believe, was due to the reduced
> time frame they were working with, compared to our 10-ish month time frame,
> I think Sae Ra and Joel would be better placed to explain their workload at
> the Wednesday meeting.
>
> *  Finally, one of the reasons put forward to go for a hybrid model is
> that our theme is "Community", and face to face interaction is an important
> part of building a community. As I have pointed out before, *we* chose
> "Community" and we have only announced that to LA, not the wider
> community.  As such, there is nothing stopping us from coming up with a
> different theme, or re-define it to something like "Open Source supporting
> Community in Difficult Times", which would include last year's fires in
> addition to the current pandemic.
>
> I am certainly disappointed that I can't host the face to face conference
> that I wanted to hold when I first started agitating after LCA2018, but I
> have to be realistic - It's important to put on an LCA and it's important
> to LA that it doesn't make a huge loss (which I suspect would happen if we
> held the hybrid version).
>
> Cheers
>
> Rob
>
> On 22/2/21 9:14 pm, James Iseppi wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
> While I didn’t attend the entire meeting, from what I gathered the
> majority of the people attending wanted to do a Hybrid conference, while
> their were only two (yourself included) that said that we should not. From
> that perspective, I think we as the presumptive team need some convincing
> that what LA and yourself are proposing (an online only event) is something
> we want to run.
> While I appreciate that LA have to manage the risks around losing money
> from a failed conference (no matter the format), I think we need some
> actual arguments that an online conference is easier, less resource
> intensive, more likely to succeed, etc when compared to a F2F/Hybrid event.
> Whatever the LCA2021 team are able to share about what they did, how well
> it worked, the challenges they faced, the number of people hours it took to
> deliver, etc before our meeting on Wednesday would be very helpful in
> informing our understanding of what an online only event entails and would
> allow us to more reasonably respond to the question being posed.
> Thanks
> James
>
> On 22 Feb 2021, at 20:11, Rob Bolin via CBR2021 <
> cbr2021 at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Miles, Neill and I have just met with Sae Ra and Joel on our way forward.
> Sae Ra has requested that the team put forward, in writing, some good
> reasons why we should go ahead with a hybrid model, to be forwarded to LA.
>
> To be honest, I can't really think of any good reasons why we should (as I
> expressed in our meeting), so can I ask those that expressed a preference
> for Hybrid over online-only please provide a couple of paragraphs why we
> should go ahead with the Hybrid model.
>
> Sorry to be brutally frank, but if I don't get any responses, the LA will
> make their decision based on available information which, most likely, will
> be to go ahead with an online only.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> CBR2021 mailing list
> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBR2021 mailing list
> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBR2021 mailing list
> CBR2021 at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cbr2021
>


-- 
Miles Goodhew
Miles at m0les.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/cbr2021/attachments/20210224/c500a9cb/attachment-0001.html>