<nbathum>
starting from most agreeable to most unknown, we can offer:
<nbathum>
Space on the 2020.nixcon.org website (similar to prior years)
<nbathum>
Specific intros/read-outs (either by MC or by a sponsor representative) that are separated from each other (like every 3 talks)
<nbathum>
Some kind of "conversation facilitation". i.e. dedicated Jitsi room with special features?
<nbathum>
A guaranteed talk slot?
<das_j>
as long as it's broadly on topic probably
<puck>
yeah
<nbathum>
On the costs side, we have more control. I think our infra costs are not a problem. Additionally as we discussed msg'ed freevps.cz folks on discourse, and they seem eager to lend some additional server resources
<das_j>
since it's all online, what about some bottom banner that shows every 15 minutes or so?
<V>
consider what the ADGQ people do
<das_j>
(one line of text only so it doesn't get annoying - will stay in the recordings for life)
<nbathum>
^ plugged some (misc/arbitrary) values in for the things we discussed
<puck>
imo having a consistent bottom banner during the presentations seems a bit intrusive
<nbathum>
what about logos on the broadcast background image?
<qyliss>
whoops!
<qyliss>
here now :)
<qyliss>
nbathum: what do you mean by background image?
<qyliss>
like the background of the web page?
<puck>
i think background of the stream, behind the presentation/webcam thing
<qyliss>
oh, yeah, if we're not just slowing slides full screen
<qyliss>
Do we want that sort of thing?
<qyliss>
I don't think I have an opinion
<edef>
heya
<edef>
zurihac did a whole background thing
<puck>
mm
<adisbladis>
nbathum: Previous years we had the discussion around guaranteed talk slot but arrived at the conclusion that it's a bad idea
<nbathum>
yes, background of the stream. I'd prefer to keep that separate from the talks, so that a recording of a talk can be split
<nbathum>
adisbladis: :+1: I was kind of thinking the same thing
<qyliss>
Yeah, probably.
<qyliss>
edef: think we could do a backgroud like nbathum described there?
<edef>
yeah
<edef>
i've avoided building that in my OBS setup so far, because we did not really have graphics for the conf yet
<edef>
and uhh, graphic design is not my passion :p
<nbathum>
is anyone strongly opposed to that notion?
<edef>
mostly worried about squishing a bunch of brands together into one space i guess
<qyliss>
The sort of tiled sponsor background is pretty common
<edef>
that is fair
<nbathum>
maybe its a 'base' perk, not tiered, and we'd just make a regular tiling, so all the sponsor logos get the same size space
<qyliss>
Yeah, that sounds right to me
<nbathum>
here is where I think we're at
<nbathum>
yes: (base) dedicated read-out on stream, space on broadcast "background"
<nbathum>
yes: (tiered) space on webpage
<nbathum>
no: guaranteed talk slot
<nbathum>
where are we at on the idea of "facilitating conversations" somehow? like with 'permanent' Jitsi rooms or something
<qyliss>
I'm +1 on that
<nbathum>
need puck or edef input on that, since they are the main force behind the Jitsi effort
<nbathum>
I'm for it, but I don't want to 'voluntold' more work on anyone
<edef>
jitsi rooms are low-overhead
<edef>
like, we're literally intending for participants to be able to create them
<nbathum>
there was some talk around that, since anyone can just create them, would there be a benefit to doing this? maybe this is also not tiered and sponsors can choose whether they want that or not
<nbathum>
edef: are you saying the inherent resource cost is low (for a jitsi room)? would you be okay if we did something like list the "sponsored" rooms first or distinguish them from user-created rooms?
<nbathum>
I'll wait a bit, but in leau of more input, consider the idea nixed (NA meaning: canceled)
<nbathum>
I'm planning to increase the sponorship package prices to: 750, 1500, 3000 (euro) unless there is strong objection. IMO there is inherent value for companies to sponsor this kind of community event. Additionally my sense is that we are on solid moral/ethical ground with these actions, given how the funds will flow first to NixOS Foundation, then second to recoup our costs, and given that our costs are
<nbathum>
limited to what we've already agreed on (server/bandwidth costs for jitsi, rtmp, dash, and buying each speaker a usb microphone) and communicated the same to the sponsors.
<qyliss>
That sounds good to me
<samueldr>
about graphical elements for streams, I did some for the last three nixcon, if someone wants to pick my brain about what to do and what not to do
<fadenb[m]>
Just dropping a few links regarding the use of Jitsi to make sure you benefit from the experiences the Freifunk Munich folks had with their setup:
<qyliss>
Looks like there's some cool tips for tuning there
<qyliss>
Fortunately as far as we know the firefox degrading the quality for everyone issue is fixed now
<fadenb[m]>
<qyliss "Fortunately as far as we know th"> AFAIK only if all participants are on a new enough version
<edef>
nbathum: listing them seems solid
<edef>
nbathum: and yeah, the price point seems ok there
<qyliss>
fadenb[m]: by the time of NixCon the old version won't even be LTS
<qyliss>
So we can reasonably just block it.
<qyliss>
And instruct people to update.
<edef>
that's okay by me, if we note that down somewhere
<fadenb[m]>
We thought so too a while back until we encountered people changing their user agent and breaking the conferences again 🤷♂️
<samueldr>
can the block do it through feature detection? thinking about those spooky firefoxen forks
<qyliss>
hmm that's a good point
<samueldr>
^ and that :/
<samueldr>
I don't know what's involved, is it a feature that's missing or a bug?
<qyliss>
I think it's a bug but not really sure
<samueldr>
aye; that's annoying in that case
<qyliss>
I would also be fine with IP banning anybody who we noticed trying to change their user agent because they were okay with ruining the conference for everybody.
<samueldr>
technical question: how does slides vs. camera scene selection even work with such a setup?
<samueldr>
it's not like the live mixer desk has access to the speaker's computer display output and a separate camera exactly
Guest12122324 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<puck>
the jitsi thing is a bug we can catch on the server side, i believe
<puck>
for the mixing, we could just send the desktop and camera as separate streams, and compose them on the mixer end, assuming they don't have many unexpected requirements; or just have the person toggle by themselves
<samueldr>
might also be useful to prepare scenarios where the user has low upload speeds, thinking 10mbps and lower
<samueldr>
e.g. *I* have a 10mbps upload speed at best
<samueldr>
I guess that latency is not important here, since it's mostly one-way at a time
<puck>
mm
<puck>
in general, low upload speeds are fine here
xd1le has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xd1le has joined #nixcon
<samueldr>
oh, I'm not saying it won't be, I am asking because fast upload speed could have been assumed