[pp.int.general] PPI GA Prague / Video Conference System for remote delegates

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/29/2011 9:00 AM, Gregory Engels wrote:
> 
I have to address some of these


>> Mh, why don't just stream via OGG on a html5 page for output (so
>> anybody can see it without flash), 
> 
> (no, not anybody, but only people using the latest generation of web
> browsers... It also excludes all the people that have to use IE)
> 

IE9 can handle html5 just fine. In fact, it does so better than Firefox
(or at least 5, the last version I tried)

>> then for income let people to use various communication methods (IRC
>> for those who don't want flash, and actual system for those who want
>> to speak with audio + video)? I think is better to mount various
>> possibilities than only one who includes everybody (imho)
> 
> No. it is not. really not. Please take a step back from the technical
> implementation details and look on the issue that needs to be addressed:

Indeed. The technical issues are trivial. They only SEEM like an issue
because so many of us are coders. So when you think of issues, you think
in terms of the code first. For the non-coders, technical implementation
details matter about as much as the design of the urinals at the
location matters to the physical delegates. Not at all.

> 
> The PPI is an umbrella organization of Pirate Parties and other juristic
> entities (german youth pirates, pirates without borders,... ). It is
> acting as an international NGO - representing the interests of its
> members. Due to statutes, there needs to be a general assembly of the
> PPI's members at least once a year. To handle all the bureaucratic stuff
> like electing a board, the arbitrators, the auditors, but also to
> network and mingle and spread ideas and best practices. It was the will
> of the founding members to write into the statues that a remote
> participation should be always possible and that all important meetings
> of the PPI should be public and available for remote participants over
> the internet. This is due to self inflicted obligation to political
> transparency of the pirate movement. It is a direct consequence of the
> same demand directed towards the "established" political systems -
> Politics should be transparent and democratic. 
> 
> Now - this has nothing to do with free or unfree software, or any
> idealism of any users: Since the participants of the general assembly of
> the Pirate Parties International are political entities, being only
> represented by humans, they do not share the same freedoms as do real
> people, and the concerns of any inconveniences for the single delegates
> are ranked second behind the political transparence. 
> 
> (and we are not talking about the "regular" streaming for the general
> public, observing the conference, that is handled well by the regular
> streaming/recording) 
> 
> The PPI should implement a system that allows the most participation,
> and this is the in person meeting. The remote participation is only a
> substitution and the moaning of last year remote participants proves it:
> they will _always_ remain "second class" participants of the conference
> that take place in a physical location (I think this will be true even
> if a star-trek like holographic projection will be invented any soon: it
> didn't work even for star-trek, where diplomatic events are always held
> in person). 

Oh boy! one of my areas of EXPERT knowledge :-) (guess who was
startrek.com's master of trek trivia from 98-2001)
They held them in person firstly for technical reasons - even subspace
comms aren't instantaneous. Anyone who has done a satellite broadcast of
any distance knows the lag of a second or two makes it harder to
communicate.
Taking off my trek hat a moment, there's a reason why even here and now,
they're done in person. It shows an effort of attendance, an indication
of the willingness to undertake the discussion. Of course, they're not
only getting paid to do it, and have their expenses covered, but the
matters of visas and such are irrelevent. NONE of that is true for us,
yet (with the possibly exception of Christian and Amelia, MAYBE)

> 
> So, we could never make it "perfect" for remote delegates, but we could
> try to eliminate the worst  issues the skype-group chat participants had
> last time:  (and most of this issues are entirely not technical, but
> procedural)
> * it was difficult (and in some cases even impossible) for a delegate to
> get "on the floor" in a conference discussion. 
> ** this was, because the laptop that had the skype conversation running
> was badly monitored and to put the skype video-call (of which none was
> even attempted, as far as I recall) on the main PA and video screen
> ** also, if there was an audio call from a remote participant, that
> would get noticed and actually put on the PA and the main screen - the
> audio was really bad - because the remote participant had not switched
> off their audio of the live-stream, that resulted in feedback-loops and
> heavily  echos.
> * the remote delegates had a chat among themselves, that was completely
> unnoticed,  and therefore ignored, by the "inhouse" delegates. 

I'm not sure what's worse about this. The fact it's written as though it
was a minor problem. Or the fact that you are presenting it as a problem
from this event. In actual fact, ALL these issues were true of the
PREVIOUS event, in Brussels, as well. And I know I for one
*specifically* asked you Gregory, as CHAIRMAN OF PPI at the time, to
ensure this wasn't an issue again. I believe it was Jerry, your
co-chairman, who was supposed to be 'representing' us physically, and
failed.

> 
> What Wolfgang suggesting is a solution to the second part of the problem
> - addressing the audio feedback and echos, and also make it easier to
> put the remote participant on the main screen. 
> 
> It does not address the non-technical issues of conference proceedings
> that make it difficult for a remote delegate to "raise his voice".  

This is an issue of organiser competence. Hopefully it won't be an issue
this time.

> 
> It would be simply impractical to create "various possibilities than
> only one who includes everybody" - this would worsen the problems of
> remote delegates that they will not be able to do any real participation
> besides of just voting. 
> 
> We need one solution, that works well. And then it is to the member
> parties to find a delegate, that could agree to use this system. I am
> sure that also in the Pirate Party of Brazil might be people, who would
> not mind to use flash on their computer. And then, everybody from
> Brazil,  who has problems with installing flash (or skype) could travel
> in brazil to the one who has not this concerns. Or Brazil could send his
> delegate again to europe and crowd-source the travel money, it worked in
> the past, and I am sure it could work again. Or, (and this is the last
> one) the PPI Statutes also allow to delegate a voice to another one, who
> is present in person at the conference - provided that such a trust exists. 

There is another option altogether. One that ALSO deals with the issues
Samir raised (location). A 100% virtual meeting. I just read through the
statutes, and nowhere does it state that the General Assembly has to
PHYSICALLY meet once a year. Then we're ALL 'second class' citizens, and
thus equal, we save money that can be better put to other uses, and
things are simplified since we'll be dealing with one audience, not a
physical one and a virtual one at the same time.

And I see your 'star trek meets in person' and raise you a demolition
man, Max Headroom, and a Jedi Council, all who used virtual-only, or
virtual-physical conferences for meetings within their organisations.


- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.blogspot.com
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO/MsBAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HVtgIAJKXnrnxvzbfeIyurqUjrCPr
Dgco95aLwhTWmCmoQBTYH1JNRntv/pV9rSL1g3vCYBk1NuqV4vN/hHBFdOvt7X7n
4FmXBDTEt/0IVTQfvt538OhF7EVB8Bg9xQn8vjCZBBVzPNqCFG/TvfNaSwJ4Qups
VxvvkRGWoSQ66C9aoSWu41cxmvc+aUuinrnoX5bdWk3YkhpDAPC0QHEdf4GkRTxO
fBGrcbpVpE2zlnH8mxvNy8qegMoJjrYW73dsAdtM32R5BjWAVdLqMfav3mBn63lI
J7QXwkNKrxvk5gR6ql+7JAeZeAHmfknEs7BOSoQyEFsXR2RubriOozWEiYANJKE=
=n7/7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----