[Cc-webedit] [mediateam] The LIVE climatecamp event website

[Dan Gifford]

> I just wanted to say without having a stance one way or the other that
> although i am on this list and this is a field (web based  
> participatory
> media) which is naturally my speciality subject, and the reason i am
> involved, i haven't been invited to any of these meetings nor am i  
> aware
> of any that have been held outside of the london area. This isn't a
> problem if this is a separate grouping, but if it is being done  
> under the
> banner of climate camp then i would have concerns over it's  
> inclusivity.

Yes, I agree. It's not very consensus. I guess it's a bumpy transition  
to a working group? With a fast looming swoop, and some great  
enthusiasm and ideas adding to that.

> With that in mind, i'd ask that a decision on whether this is a  
> permanent
> way of getting climate camp media out be held off until it can be  
> properly
> discussed at a national meeting without prejudice. This should of  
> course
> include all those affected including the web, media and outreach  
> teams,
> but most importantly campers themselves so that they can be asked  
> how they
> want to be portrayed.

It will be a great thing that the climate camp has 'TV' as a working  
group. Sharing the skills and workload within the movement, and  
getting a more authentic message than ever. With feed in ideas from  
the rest of the camp.
VisionON, Indymedia crew, and other working groups within the camp  
(and individuals) have done so much work to help the voices be heard  
so far.

> Like i say, i'm in neither camp but would ask that all this energy is
> directed into the swoop...

It will be great indeed. :o)

> and that what comes after can wait for a proper
> discussion that includes everyone.

Sounds like a very exciting meeting!
Dan


> In solidarity
>
> jimdog
>
>> Hi Richard, that's very good news that you got a decent fee from  
>> Film of
>> Record! Well done for standing firm - I must get Paul to do all my
>> negotiations, as I didn't do nearly as well from them!
>>
>> OKay, as for the other issues. The meeting on the 27th was, I  
>> thought, a
>> really good example of the power of consensus decision making. We  
>> had some
>> difficult problems to resolve, and yet we managed to find a  
>> solution that
>> we
>> could all agree with. Part of that solution was that we would build  
>> a new
>> website, and that this site would 'launch' with the Swoop. We  
>> agreed that
>> something would be presented on the 11th for approval by the group.  
>> (so
>> there was plenty of notice that this meeting would be the point  
>> were the
>> decision would be made, and that all people who had strong feelings  
>> should
>> be there). We also discussed at this meeting that what got launched  
>> on the
>> swoop might be something that was specially made for the site, and we
>> discussed that it would be designed to incorporate all of the 'live'
>> material from the mobile phones, etc. Everyone was well up for  
>> that, and
>> there didn't not seem to be a concern that these things feel  
>> outside the
>> bounds of 'tv'. And the plan was for it to be what sat on our URL  
>> for the
>> weekend. Noone at that meeting, or at the meeting on Sunday  
>> expressed any
>> concern that this was 'not TV', as far as I recall, there was broad
>> consensus that it would be really cool to be the home for this  
>> project.
>>
>> So those of us involved in the 'live' stuff, went away to try to  
>> make all
>> of
>> that happen.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as is often the case with these things, we hit up  
>> against a
>> variety of problems along the way, and with time being very short,  
>> things
>> have been fairly last minute at certain junctures. So no, the site is
>> still
>> not live, but then the ClimateCamp.tv site wasn't live (at least  
>> not in a
>> presentable way) until the day before camp started.
>>
>> Plans are in place, and the work that still needs to be done to  
>> finalize
>> the
>> interface will happen by Friday, and the site will be ready. If  
>> it's not,
>> we
>> will simply have to use the existing site for CCTV output, but I'm
>> confident
>> that it will get sorted.
>>
>> One of the other things that have made communications difficult  
>> around
>> this
>> is security desires on the part of some of the individuals  
>> involved, So
>> for
>> example, yes, the capture the flag test site has been up for a  
>> while, but
>> for reasons that I'm not the right person to explain or defend, I was
>> asked
>> not to email about it or post a link anywhere. This made it  
>> difficult for
>> us
>> to talking about outside of face to face meetings, which is why we  
>> brought
>> the proposal to the meeting on Sunday, as had been arranged.
>>
>> Plus, it should be considered that the 'plan' as proposed at the  
>> meeting
>> Sunday, had only really started to fall together in the few days  
>> before
>> that, and we did, at that point, send out links to the test site to
>> certain
>> people via less trackable means, but as you already know about it, we
>> assumed that we needn't re-send it to you or hamish.
>>
>> As it happens, Lauren is right, we have already started promoting
>> climatecamp.tv as the place to look for this 'live' experiment. And  
>> I for
>> one am really proud to be a central part of the whole endeavor. IS  
>> it TV?
>> I
>> don't know, but then is what we do on CCTV really 'TV' anyway?
>>
>> Dan had a good suggestion, from a technical point of view: As we  
>> will want
>> people to always be able to find the 'live' stuff later on, without  
>> having
>> to go to a different URL than they went to over that weekend. He  
>> suggested
>> that the URL be climatecamp.tv/swoop, and that climatecamp.tv simply
>> redirect to that for the weekend, and then retain the archive of the
>> 'live'
>> interface at climatecamp.tv/swoop after we return to the existing  
>> cite on
>> the monday.
>>
>> E
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/10/14 richard hering <richard at visionon.tv>
>>
>>> I must say I am finding this process very difficult to work with.   
>>> It
>>> simply isn't right to make major decisions about websites and stuff
>>> which
>>> involve a number of key players without their being able to  
>>> participate.
>>> Since the Climate Camp we have had two meetings of CCTV, and on both
>>> occasions a pre-arranged lobby has arrived and effectively foisted
>>> decisions
>>> on the group.  The first meeting two weeks ago was supposed to be a
>>> de-brief
>>> to know what worked and what did not, but obviously a group had  
>>> already
>>> made
>>> a debrief among themselves, and this did not happen. Instead a  
>>> proposal
>>> was
>>> passed with very radical implications for the CCTV project where  
>>> anyone
>>> disagreeing was left to feel they were very much out on a limb.   
>>> Then at
>>> last Sunday's meeting a website design was shown which is still  
>>> not live
>>> as
>>> of today, three days before the swoop, with the completely  
>>> unnecessary
>>> proposal that this should take over the functioning climatecamp.tv  
>>> site,
>>> rather than be linked off it.  As has already been discussed  
>>> since, the
>>> site
>>> proposed is great if it works, but is not a tv site, but a live  
>>> mixed
>>> media
>>> site, a valuable addition to media web presence, not a replacement  
>>> for
>>> the
>>> TV. The site the proposed live site is based on, which could  
>>> actually be
>>> demonstrated, has been up for over a month, but was not put out as a
>>> link
>>> before the meeting, so people were completely unable to form a  
>>> judgment,
>>> and
>>> the only person who could was not able to be at the meeting.
>>>
>>> It is easy to place a large link on the current climatecamp.tv site
>>> which
>>> will draw people strongly to the live media site, (exactly similar  
>>> to
>>> what
>>> is planned for the climatecamp.org.uk site itself) so the fact of  
>>> cctv
>>> already having views, and maybe of publicity having gone out with  
>>> its
>>> url,
>>> will not be a problem.
>>>
>>> For myself, I remain committed to doing the best for media  
>>> coverage of
>>> climate camp.  A small point of good news: after much attempted
>>> bartering,
>>> Films of Record, who are making a programme Channel Four's  
>>> Dispatches,
>>> are
>>> purchasing a clip from "Letter to the Met" for the fee we originally
>>> asked
>>> for. Yay!
>>>
>>> Best wishes to everyone
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> 2009/10/14 lauren simpson <laurenjsimpson at googlemail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>> In response to Richard H's email, I'd like to make a few comments.
>>>>
>>>> - It was agreed at the meeting that we were going ahead with the
>>>> proposed
>>>> new site and it would borrow the climatecamp.tv url for the  
>>>> weekend. At
>>>> no point did you say you needed to go away and think about  
>>>> consenting
>>>> to the
>>>> proposal, it was agreed. It is all in place, with an existing  
>>>> audience
>>>> ready
>>>> to watch and interact with climatecamp.tv and not another url. To
>>>> change
>>>> the plan at this late stage would be confuse and be destructive  
>>>> in my
>>>> opinion. There is still discussions to be had about the cc.tv  
>>>> site post
>>>> swoop but for this weekend at least the plan had been agreed.
>>>>
>>>> - the discussion about closed and open sourcing is an important  
>>>> one,
>>>> and
>>>> it is agreed that it will be discussed at length by all involved  
>>>> at the
>>>> next
>>>> national gathering to find a (open source) solution. For now,  
>>>> with 3
>>>> days to
>>>> go before the swoop, the site should go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> So I propose the next step should be, once the site is ready to  
>>>> go, for
>>>> climatecamp.tv to become the new site for the weekend.  
>>>> Technically I am
>>>> inexperienced as to what actually needs to be done to make this  
>>>> happen
>>>> but
>>>> with the short time we have left it is crucial for those that  
>>>> need to
>>>> implement this to communicate and make it happen. Dan and Hamish I
>>>> believe?
>>>>
>>>> Lauren
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/10/14 <theinnercityhippy at riseup.net>
>>>>
>>>> hi all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't at the meeting unfortunately but here are a few points  
>>>>> i'd like
>>>>> to
>>>>> make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly in regards to the pittsburgh code briefly. Their lack of  
>>>>> reply
>>>>> may
>>>>> be down to the fact that 2 activists were arrested by the fbi at  
>>>>> the
>>>>> g20
>>>>> on major conspiricy charges for using twitter to coordinate the
>>>>> protests
>>>>> so everyone over there is a bit jumpy. After the event, we'll  
>>>>> contact
>>>>> them
>>>>> as northern imc and put in a request for it as they are more  
>>>>> likely to
>>>>> respond to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, all of these super cool media things are what the
>>>>> hyperactive
>>>>> project was started to achieve. The best case scenario here in  
>>>>> mx mind
>>>>> would be for those wanting to work on this to join that  
>>>>> development
>>>>> team
>>>>> where there is already a strong aggregation base for development
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> no duplication of content and help would be greatly appreciated.  
>>>>> The
>>>>> benefits for the cctv team is that you can then draw on a wealth  
>>>>> of
>>>>> talent
>>>>> from the global indy geek community and the movement as a whole  
>>>>> will
>>>>> benefit from what we produce.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mx concerns about the corporate solutions out there are well  
>>>>> known but
>>>>> i
>>>>> concede that there is nothing that can be done in time for the  
>>>>> swoop.
>>>>> I
>>>>> therefore suggest that people use whatever for that, we will be
>>>>> providing
>>>>> an accurate timeline and a mobile publishing site for the event  
>>>>> as an
>>>>> alternative, and that we sit down afterwards and find open source
>>>>> versions
>>>>> of what went well (or write our own) and incorporate them into the
>>>>> hyperactive project for future events. Then the live site can  
>>>>> simply
>>>>> be
>>>>> that with different branding perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> We're going to make a full presentation to a national gathering  
>>>>> soon
>>>>> on
>>>>> the evils of closed source and corporate solutions with a view to
>>>>> getting
>>>>> a moratorium on their primary use over our own solutions and this
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> like it fits in perfectly with this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> In solidarity
>>>>>
>>>>> jimdog
>>>>>
>>>>> ps there are a wealth of indy and non indy alt media resources and
>>>>> coders
>>>>> out there on crabgrass and others which i can direct people to  
>>>>> if they
>>>>> wish :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have now had the chance to have a look in detail at the  
>>>>>> proposal for
>>>>> the
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> site (I was clear at Sunday's CCTV meeting that that would be
>>>>> necessary
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> giving consent to it being the tv site) - and I very much support
>>>>> its
>>>>>> principle of setting up an aggregated live mixed media site.   
>>>>>> This
>>>>> should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> really exciting and productive during the Swoop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree also, though, with the reservations above, viz:
>>>>>> 1. It is not a TV site, but a very valuable addition to the
>>>>> resources
>>>>> as a
>>>>>> live mixed media site - it therefore should have the domain
>>>>>> live.climatecamp.org.uk. Right now we have set up as a
>>>>>> stop-gaplive.climatecamp.tv
>>>>>> 2. I share the reservations about the corporate solutions  
>>>>>> provided
>>>>> within
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> - these are closed source, whereas both climatecamp.org.uk and  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> climatecamp.tv and indymedia are open source (the duplication of
>>>>> indymedia
>>>>>> with something which is closed source and has IP logging is
>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> problematic - agree with Jon also that we need to sort this out
>>>>> before
>>>>> the
>>>>>> weekend).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we like the experiment very much, and would welcome more
>>>>> comments
>>>>> from
>>>>>> webteam on any issues that arise from using it this weekend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One open source solution for after the Swoop would be to use  
>>>>>> the imc
>>>>>> pittsburgh code base (they had a fantastic aggregated site for  
>>>>>> the
>>>>> recent
>>>>>> G20).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposal:
>>>>>> We put this up when it is ready as a really happening lived mixed
>>>>> media
>>>>>> site
>>>>>> with the address live.climatecamp.org.uk
>>>>>> After the weekend we look at using imc philadelphia's code base  
>>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>>> construction of a similar live media aggregated site which is  
>>>>>> open
>>>>> source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do especially webteam, who have to set the url, think? I  
>>>>>> share
>>>>> their
>>>>>> concerns about indymedia, and confess I can't get my head round  
>>>>>> it
>>>>> right
>>>>>> now.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/10/13 Jon Leighton <j at jonathanleighton.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hiya,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That demo seems broken now - is it up elsewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general I think this is very cool technologically. But no-one
>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> to be talking about how this relates to Indymedia and I think  
>>>>>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> definite conflict there. Whatever we do with the website on the
>>>>> day,
>>>>>>> we're going to need to be clear on one place where people should
>>>>> upload
>>>>>>> their stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have any great pearls of wisdom, particularly as I am
>>>>> struggling
>>>>>>> to actually stay awake, but just thought it was important to  
>>>>>>> start
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> conversation. It's super important we sort this out ASAP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 01:06 +0100, hamish wrote:
>>>>>>>> Looked at the website http://live.climatecamp.tv
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting widget mash up. I like it, good to experiment with
>>>>> these.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Discussion points
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * This site is the capture the flag site it has been around  
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> while?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Because it is made up of lots of different widgets all the
>>>>> parts
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> have a different look and feel and different functionality,
>>>>> logins
>>>>>>> etc,
>>>>>>>> making it unintuitive to navigate in places.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * the anti-corporate geeks will have HUGE problems with the use
>>>>> of
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> corporate solutions, IP tracking, and lack of ownership of data
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> comes from using for profit software/hosting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * it isn t finished yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * It clearly isn t a TV site, and works best as open publishing
>>>>> so
>>>>>>> isn t
>>>>>>>> a replacement for the existing website. See
>>>>> http://indypgh.org/g20/#
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the same project at work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Were will the channels be and what hosting will be used?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * I can t see how comments will be built in. Possible using
>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> like http://js-kit.com which I tried 3 months ago, is it  
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>> now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have created a domain to use http://live.climatecamp.tv  As  
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> mixed media live site it should really be at
>>>>> live.climatecamp.org.uk -
>>>>>>>> it would be more appropriate as a climatecamp.org url -it would
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>> to ask the cc webteam for that domain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hamish
>>>>>>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>>>> To get to the Media Team Crabgrass, email
>>>>> press at climatecamp.org.ukto
>>>>>>> request access
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Cc-webedit mailing list
>>>>>> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
>>>>>> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>> To get to the Media Team Crabgrass, email  
>>>> press at climatecamp.org.uk to
>>>> request access
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>