How far do we go to satisfy everyone?

Short Answer: Until we find a solution. This is the nature of inclusivity.

Long Answer: Geographical diversity is important now, and will be more important in the future. Inhibiting remote participation clearly limits the ability of directors, especially individually elected directors, to participate in one of our peak governing bodies from outside of a small geographical area.

If we are unwilling outsource resolution of a simple issue in a mature technological field, I cannot imagine how we can succeed in meeting our diversity goals in areas where the solution space is much less mature and the effort required from us all will be orders of magnitude higher.

Does the board have any limitations in mind when it comes to the charter we approved just last month? If we do, I suggest we publish them so they can be debated and endorsed.

Roland

[cross posted to the Foundation-Board list]

On 6 August 2015 at 01:15, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:

Roland, I'm going to push back a bit.. While I like the idea of wireless mics. Tossing out a a URL does not make a solution. That's nothing more than tossing the monkey.

If you may recall in Palo Alto we had wireless mics we ran into to huge problems after a couple hours. Batteries die and with them be Li-Ion they weren't simple swap out AA's. We have to have mics that will hold up to 9-10 hour meetings. Second requirement 28 mics.

Then comes the question - what are you going to plug the receiver into?

Oh then the requirement for video pops up as well as needing system to work in Asia, Europe, America,... Now we are talking power, phone lines, internet, ...

How far do we go to satisfy everyone?

-AlanClark

>>>
> Given that a the solution for this problem exists in some form, can I get
> someone from the Foundation to commit to engaging an audio engineer to
> determine if there is a practical, cost effective solution to trial at the
> next board meeting?
>
>
> Roland
>
> On 31 July 2015 at 11:48, Roland Chan <roland@aptira.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> http://en-au.sennheiser.com/2000-series-wireless-sound-system-live-broadcasti
> ng-sports-events-theatre
>>
>> Looks expensive and potentially overengineered, but I think if we engaged
>> an audio engineering outfit they could design a more appropriate solution
>> and rent it to us on site. The key here would be to get some professional
>> help.
>>
>>
>> Roland
>>
>> On 30 July 2015 at 13:32, Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not a question of bias. Tristan and I looked into this a long time
>>> ago but didn't come up with a viable solution for a portable rig.
>>>
>>> Propose away.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> > Indeed. I'm suggesting mics that attach to the person. That way, people
>>> can
>>> > turn to look at each other without degrading sound quality. It seems to
>>> me
>>> > that the facilities and tools we use are not designed for our use case.
>>> > Maybe there are other solutions, but the situation last night was really
>>> > bad.
>>> >
>>> > I would estimate that we got good sound levels less than 25% of time
>>> from
>>> > the room. No offence to the rest of board, but I don't think we're
>>> going to
>>> > start talking into the mics. I understand this problem has existed in
>>> > varying degrees for a long time.
>>> >
>>> > Put on a diversity hat: what are we doing to remove unconscious bias
>>> > against remote participation?
>>> >
>>> > Roland.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 8:51 PM Alan Clark <aclark@suse.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Everyone in the room had a mic. The mics were directional so people
>>> had to
>>> >> remember to speak directly into the mic. Head turning is why the sound
>>> >> varied widely.
>>> >> On a good note the number of active mics was controlled so that at
>>> most 4
>>> >> were active. That reduced voice collision.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -------- Original message --------
>>> >> From: "Bias, Randy" <Randy.Bias@emc.com>
>>> >> Date:07/28/2015 11:13 PM (GMT-06:00)
>>> >> To: Roland Chan <roland@aptira.com>,
>>> >> foundation-board-confidential@lists.openstack.org
>>> >> Cc:
>>> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board Confidential] [Foundation Board
>>> >> Confidental] Remote Audio Issues
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >>> "Bias, Randy" 07/28/2015 22:13 >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> +1
>>> >>
>>> >> The volume levels were brutal, with online folks being super loud as
>>> it
>>> >> was necessary to turn volume up to hear those in-room. My ears are
>>> still
>>> >> ringing. Especially from Simon. That guy is loud. ;)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --Randy
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> VP, Technology, EMC Corporation
>>> >>
>>> >> Board of Directors, OpenStack Foundation
>>> >>
>>> >> Formerly Founder & CEO, Cloudscaling (now a part of EMC)
>>> >>

>>> >>
>>> >> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
>>> >>
>>> >> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: Roland Chan <roland@aptira.com>
>>> >> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 8:10 PM
>>> >> To: "foundation-board-confidential@lists.openstack.org" <
>>> >> foundation-board-confidential@lists.openstack.org>
>>> >> Subject: [Foundation Board Confidential] [Foundation Board Confidental]
>>> >> Remote Audio Issues
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi All
>>> >>
>>> >> There were problems with the inroom/remote levels and there were
>>> echoes,
>>> >> possibly the problems were related. Can I suggest we either check the
>>> >> performance of the venue with remote attendees and remediate prior to
>>> the
>>> >> event or invest in a portable rig with enough wireless microphones to
>>> mic
>>> >> up all the speakers?
>>> >>
>>> >> As we appear to be on track for an increasingly distributed board a
>>> >> relatively small investment would go a long way (a little under 14,000
>>> km
>>> >> in this case).
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Roland
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >
>>> > *Roland@Aptira* from mobile
>>>
>>>
>>