From Transmission
Jump to: navigation, search


  • New site showcase
  • The future of TX? What is it?
    • Review previous aims
    • What's the current problem
    • What can we do to address it?


  1. And (EngageMedia)
  2. Enrico (EngageMedia)
  3. Teague (Isuma TV)
  4. John (Isuma TV)
  5. Namita (Pad.ma)
  6. Sanjay (Pad.ma)
  7. Hamish (visionOntv)
  8. Jan (v2v/ffmpeg2theora)
  9. Bryan (WITNESS)
  10. Sam (WITNESS)
  11. Micheal Dale (Metavid)


We began with a go round and introductions and then a summary of the work so far.

And: Documentation and education around tools - could happen within transmission - best practices, open source tool facilitation

More emphasis on the politics of open source tools for video – can become part of how we operate

The network came out at a point in time when all the tools weren’t available. Now there are so many more tools, and many of the problems have been solved. We now have the capacity to deal with issues, and any tool-development should be based around the very concrete needs of the network. Could it be a space for standards?

Name?: Not so much about standardization, but rather the possibly to syndicate, share and search.

Sam: Need for common stances around how we approach metadata, which becomes more about best practices.

Best practices and knowledge sharing – but may be more than that? Do we agree that we share a principle and we are going to share that amongst our own networks?


Documentation was based around FOSS video sharing tools, not taken up by FOSS manuals. Maybe that can be aggregated into the space. We could find the relevant FLOSS manuals that can be usable in the space and for the contributors to Transmission.

New booki software allows embed of FLOSS manuals – drop in to site and a database of relevant FLOSS relevant tools

How to use a tool, not why to use a tool? That kinds of things are people endeavoring once they've mastered use of a tool. Could be combined with best practices, i.e. how to use a tool within some kind of political context

People who use the tools in diff contexts (low bandwidth), i.e. "I used these tool, I had these problems…" We could provide testing and feedback of the tools. We could start this by having listing of tools people could comment on.

Social Network:

And: To what degree should we be developing social network of people who are using video who are using video for change?

Transmission's core strength has been its social network. Thus, the tools for collaboration and communication exchange should stay there. We wan to maintain a immunity of practice. A strong network of documentation and standards will flow from social network. But, this could really just be called a network.

Events and webspace

New site is a video aggregation site. It doesn’t have the mediawiki.

Key relevance of the network is the network itself, plus ways of fostering communication and collaboration. Issues not as much around technical details (which need to be maintained of course), but more about how they are used.

Would another event be useful?

?: If we have a Network, there should be expert, helper producers that can help others. Contextualisation.

And: Webspace can now interface with public; it's more outwardly focused. What do we do with that outward focus? Its all automated, but how we can make best use of that public? Is it worth talking about that at another event?

What do we need from the network and what would the tools be to assist in those problems?

Sam: Less concerned about distribution, but in sharing communities of best practices, i.e. how people are using tools. Also important (from WITNESS pov) is to start building common consensus of safety and security stances. Distribution is less relevant for WITNESS.

Sanjay: In the Indian context distribution is not the main concern. In filmmaker networks, filmmakers don’t understand open source, or alternative licensing. Even in human rights filmmaking there is a sense of holding on to the property and not sharing them if they are sensitive. The network could work on education on that front. One of the biggest issues when pad.ma talks to people is hosting footage of privacy and representation - . Be useful to have tools to blur faces, etc. If we share info about these tools.

The needs aren’t the same as commercial person. Interface can be a bridge between tool users and tool-makers; between online producers and those that are creating media.

Best practices or even experiences with certain webflows. Perhaps discussion around outreach and documentation. Which tools and what problems they face. More information on how to experiment.

Indymedia questions to Constant. It would really help if there was an active discussion about how to use the tools; local makers that are curious are able to get in touch with other local makers.

Building practices around the development of free software.

NEEDS (written down on wall):

  • Best Practices:
    • Foss Utilisation – testing/feedback implementation
    • Workflow
    • Ethics/Normative Standards
    • Distribution
    • Privacy/Consent
    • Archiving
  • Standards – Common positions:
    • safety security
    • archiving
  • Information Sharing
    • Training/How to Materials
    • Bridge – tool users/makers
    • infosharing
  •  Profile/Promotion
  • Distribution
    • searchability

Maybe some particular set of criteria that content feeds need to conform to?

Gaps are the editorial policy. We need to least let folks know that we are making a decision not to do editorial.

Suggestion: Rather than a passive space, have people take lead on issues on a rotating basis. Aggregative space.

And: To what extent focus on profile/promotion? Distribution? Or does this require higher-level decision-making? More structure needed?

Sam: Co-promotion shouldn’t be a priority unless focused around a particular stance etc.

Bryan: Should accessibility be part of this? Especially for non-English participants.

Enrico: What about calls for collaboration using the site?

And: What’s needed to do these things? Do we need to do via online process/physical meetings?

Sam: Not sure how much momentum is there currently. What about using current collaboration structure/list serves to see where community interest, and what coalesces around, winnow down areas, and then use focused agenda at a physical meeting.

And: Use time to identify the key areas.

And: What about an event meeting for network? Maybe once clear needs are established.

Sam: Do only once needs coalesced and alongside something else.

Bryan: Do you need to do more information-gathering within network?

And: Do want to talk with more people. Want to see more shared distribution. But to do this do we need more strictly-managed consortium.

Hamish: Shared VisionOnTV mission statement as possible basis for discussion. Job of a website is to build a ladle not a soup bowl for the database soup of the internet. Not issue-specific, but based on people using common standards/tags. May the best ladle win! So use 2-way rss as all sites use this.

And: What need for additional tools beyond wiki/irc/listserve.

Sanjay: You want people to become part of the bowl of soup by using tags

  • Suggestion to have a wiki for social change videos, where can add additional context.

Hamish: Approach it by making all the parts of the site rippable out – e.g. forum can be exported.

And: Transmission cc is an experiment in aggregating RSS feeds. A big conversation.

Sam: Doubt any org will object to have its RSS feed into Transmission.cc; i.e. being part of the ladle-full. But how much will invest in co-promotion is a bigger question.

Sanjay: Of note, that Transmission is also rehosting footage, which is of value.

And: This brings costs for storage and management that not really currently addressed. Have to do in order to standardize, since multiple formats need to go oggtheora/html5. Question is less about server space, but more re paying someone to keep it up and functional.