Plan for remote participation

[bmkramer]

From @Daniel-Mietchen on May 5, 2017 0:51

• evaluate potential channels for remote participation

  • e.g.
    • live stream (video and/ or audio)
    • presentations online before talk starts
    • Twitter hashtag(s)
    • GitHub tickets
    • collaborative note-taking

• review existing tickets as to whether remote and on-site participants should be treated differently (e.g. we don't need food preferences for remote attendees)

Copied from original issue: force11/force2017#49

[bmkramer]

From @kamc on May 11, 2017 20:50

If we have individuals assisting in sessions, questions/comments could be invited via Twitter (or whatever other means) and shared by that facilitator like any other question.

[bmkramer]

From @Daniel-Mietchen on May 17, 2017 23:23

I'd like to remain open to more active remote participation too, e.g. some talks could be given remotely.

[bmkramer]

From @nicolevasilevsky on June 14, 2017 18:33

+1 to questions or comments via Twitter

[bmkramer]

From @kamc on July 20, 2017 20:20

Discussion from Steering Committee call 7/19/17 and comments during Program Committee call 7/201/17:

ACTION: Find out how many people actually were on the live streaming to decide if it is a good return on investment and look into the difference in cost between streaming all events in one room vs only the keynotes or plenary sessions.

• Q (BK) How about live-streaming vs. recording? I.e. if we don’t livestream, would we still record and put recordings up on website or figshare?

• Doing audio in the breakout session rooms seems like enough but without losing the knowledge shared. (KC)

• Remark [BK] Return-on-investment is also dependent on a) how people who used livestream appreciated it (can we evaluate that?) and b) how much outreach is done around livestream, esp. when we focus on inclusivity.

[ljhwang]

Live streaming would require a good audio video set-up or it will quickly become frustrating.