|
Grex > Coop > #264: Simulcast and Recorded Grex Meetings | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
Simulcast and Recorded Grex Meetings
| 
Jan 8 16:22 UTC 2010 |
Grex has always prided itself on being as open as feasible. Anyone who
could physically get to a meeting was welcome to attend.
Teleconferencing was possible but limited to remote board members out of
necessity. I'm proposing we use technology to open our meetings by
simulcating and video/audio recording them so that folks could watch and
listen to them, live, with the ability to participate, again, real time,
via chat. Or catch them later as their schedule allows.
If people were camera shy they could sit where the camera wouldn't catch
them. Or video could simply stare at a sign stating "Grex Board
Meeting" and the date. I'm not all that enamored with the video thing -
it's cosmetic and sounds like work. But the audio feed and ability to
be live with chat? Lovin' it. It seems to be a nice fit for our open
meetings philosophy and the fact we want our governance to be
transparent.
There will be a learning curve where we will all have to remember it is,
indeed, an open meeting, and not let the conversation meander where it
shouldn't. But that's true, recorded or not.
I'd be happy to help with the broadcast & recording process at meetings
I could attend. I won't be in town for the Feb 7th. meeting.
So, how do you feel about opening up our board meetings in this fashion?
|
| 24 responses total. |
veek
|
|
response 1 of 24:
|
Jan 8 16:31 UTC 2010 |
totally like the idea. nothing wrong with a little meandering (good
entertainment value).
|
slynne
|
|
response 2 of 24:
|
Jan 8 17:00 UTC 2010 |
I totally like the idea too!
|
tsty
|
|
response 3 of 24:
|
Jan 8 19:46 UTC 2010 |
audio id JustFine (tm) ... rocognize that the .mp3 is 1/10th the size
of the vidleo file.
if we can get staff/board approval i can chmod back to 644 for the intersted.
|
tonster
|
|
response 4 of 24:
|
Jan 8 20:39 UTC 2010 |
I think AV would be good, but just audio is acceptable. I like the live
stream idea, and don't really understand why posting the audio is
controversial.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 24:
|
Jan 9 00:35 UTC 2010 |
The board could be dealing with confidential information.
Say, a staff report on a persistent vandal. Or information offered
in confidence about one of Grex's suppliers.
It would also mean that everything said in a board meeting would
have to be spoken with slander/libel suits in mind. For example,
if a staff person said, "Crap, Ratface took us down again, and here's
how he did it this time," do we want the staff person worried about a
lawsuit from Ratface?
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 24:
|
Jan 9 01:18 UTC 2010 |
In that case, the Board should go into executive session and turn off
the microphones. Assuming, that is, that you can predict in advance
that you'll be talking about Ratface (or other users or members). From
what I've seen, that isn't all that likely as it's fairly natural to
slip into a conversation about something like that without much thought
for the audio. Having the meeting recorded every time will take some
getting used to, I expect.
|
tonster
|
|
response 7 of 24:
|
Jan 9 05:42 UTC 2010 |
I don't know, from the board meetings I attended when I was on the board
of Arbornet, we always had closed sessions with board/staff to discuss
issues like that. I'd think Grex would do something similar, though
perhaps it's more difficult at Zingerman's.
|
veek
|
|
response 8 of 24:
|
Jan 9 12:57 UTC 2010 |
Re #5: What about editing it out? You'd need to maintain a text file
along with the video, noting the point where the edit was made and what
was said :) Like so:
Time 00:32:00
Note: X called Y Ratface was edited out
----------
perfectly legal.
|
veek
|
|
response 9 of 24:
|
Jan 9 13:34 UTC 2010 |
ffmpeg -i input.avi -vcodec copy -ss 00:20:00 -t 00:00:50 test1.avi -ss
00:30:00 -t 00:00:50 test2.avi
-ss start copy at 20 minutes -t for 50 seconds
You get the added benefit of conversion so you can rip it to a lower
bit-rate or dump only the audio out and stuff like that. With a fast
processor, it shouldn't take very long.
|
kentn
|
|
response 10 of 24:
|
Jan 9 16:49 UTC 2010 |
To avoid questions about the editing, it's better to not make such
statements in the first place.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 24:
|
Jan 9 17:09 UTC 2010 |
What a novel idea....
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 12 of 24:
|
Jan 9 18:30 UTC 2010 |
I'm in favour of both audio and video. The Board has gone into
executive session before, and probably will need to again. Make a
motion and if it passes kick everyone out and turn off the microphones.
I'm also in favour of publishing the record of the most recent Board
meeting. I know that some who weren't there have heard it, so everyone
else should get the same opportunity.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 24:
|
Jan 9 20:38 UTC 2010 |
re #5 krj you are stating concerns that are not viable. Board
meetings take place irregularly and when they do, the members should
be responsible for what they say anyway. A board meeting is not a
private bull session, it is public meeting. Open to the public.
Therefore nothing said at a board meeting should be of a nature that
it can't be said in public anyway. If you wanted to have 'closed'
board meetings at a different time, where only board members are
allowed to attend, you could do that.
But as these board meetings are in fact open to the public, there
should be no issue with regard to simulcasting/recording.
|