NI Week 2014 Videos

[Mark Balla]

All the the CLA 2014 videos are now available in the general NI week folder. Information is on the first post of this thread.

 

To address the You Tube issue.

When distributing the videos I want to put a priority on the presenters first and the consumers second.

The presenters have created the content for a LabVIEW audience in a LabVIEW context and I have been reluctant to expand the audience beyond this.

The majority of people that view the videos receive them from LabVIEW community context (Lava link, CLA link, coworker recomendation ....).

I feel this context maintains a certain expectations that may not apply outside of the LabVIEW community.

 

Placing the videos on youtube where they are searchable and view-able by anyone could easily remove the content from the context.

I feel this could expose the presenter to more intense scrutiny. I personally do not feel comfortable being a facilitator at this level without more express permission from the presenter.

 

I've discussed this over with my management and  we currently are not willing to facilitate more than the ftp site at this time.

This policy is not set in stone and we are open to other's perspective.  

 

I would like to hear others opinions and comments especially from those who have presented or are thinking about presenting in the future.

 

Mark

[MikaelH]

Thanks, you are a champ.

CLA2014 or 2015, General NI Week Folder.. I can't find it :-(

[Mark Balla]

The first post of the thread refers to the general location LabVIEW_Videos.

 

For those that have access to the The CLA  community page the 2015 videos information can be found at 

 

https://decibel.ni.com/content/thread/27678?tstart=0

[YoungZaphod]

Posting to YouTube is fine with me. I have posted my own CLA presentations on YouTube so that I can easily embed them on our web site.

[Fab]

Mark,

 

I agree that posting to YouTube should be decided by each presenter. I have posted  my videos to YouTube as well. 

 

Thanks again for doing this!

 

Regards,

Fab

[Yair]

I personally do not feel comfortable being a facilitator at this level without more express permission from the presenter.

 

Perfectly agreed. I also asked the presenters at our user group before I put it on YouTube (and even asked them to review it, because I also took the extra step of recording the screen and editing that in at relevant points). I wasn't clear that helping also meant contacting people to ask them. Sorry.

 

FWIW, YouTube also has privacy settings for videos. A video can be unlisted (not searchable, although I don't know if other search engines respect that) and it can be private (requiring a specific YouTube account in order to view). Of course, that assumes that you trust them to do it properly and keep it that way, whereas with your own FTP server you have the control.

 

I would say that at least from now on, it would be nice if you asked each presenter in real time and then recorded their answer and acted accordingly. I know it's a pain, but I think these videos are quite valuable to the community and making them more accessible is a plus.

[Thoric]

. I personally do not feel comfortable being a facilitator at this level without more express permission from the presenter.

 

Totally understand, and completely agree. I've had my presentations recorded before and I think I'd be fine with them on the searchable domain (YouTube), but I know there are others who wouldn't be. Good call.

[Aristos Queue]

My own presentations to the CLAs are very different from the ones that I have given at NIWeek. One particular instance I can think of: I made a serious sounding statement once in a CLA presentation about how "there might not be another version of LabVIEW next year." Everyone in the room knew that was a joking reference to my reluctance just a couple hours prior to commit to a release date for any given feature. But I can easily see that statement worrying someone watching the video without that background context. There are a lot of content differences, also -- I'll skim over important details of things in a CLA presentation that I wouldn't in a general presentation, on the assumption that everyone in the room knows the background. In a general presentation, I generally at least throw in a line of "there's more here and you should go research it."

 

Given that, I prefer that the CLA presentations not be generally posted.

[shoneill]

"I prefer that the CLA presentations not be generally posted."

 

AQ, you mean publically posted or posted in general (i.e. posted to a limited group vs posted at all)?

 

Speaking for myself (speaking for others tends to get me into trouble) I very much enjoy the CLA videos even though I'm not even CLAD any more....

[viSci]

Now that Tomi M. has stopped posting to his blog, deep thought in the LV community is hard enough to find without hiding the CLA content for fear that we (non-CLA's) cannot untangle the meaning from the humor.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

You can attend the the CLA summit as a benefit of making it to the CLA certification level. If you are not a CLA then you shouldn't have access to the videos. The CLA summit is all about in person attendance and talking with your peers. And especially this year, there was an extra 2 days of awesome content that was a "must see". Even watching the videos doesn't do it justice, since I got the most value from one on one conversations. Perhaps in the future, this event will be open to all, but now it isn't.

 

Mark is not paid to record videos and has not been instructed to do so by NI or anyone else (maybe some presenters have asked - no idea). He does it out of his own passion. It's quite possible that NI might prevent him from recording videos in the future at all events. This is entirely in their legal right to do so. After all, this is paid content distributed for free (CLA summit and NIWeek sessions). So please be thankful and please don't stir the pot. If you know how to find the links and are lucky then great. The YouTube solution brings a lot of attention which I think Mark's recordings should not get, in my opinion.

 

As far as the presenters. There is technology today that you can use to record your audio and your computer screen. You can even attach a webcam if you want to be fancy. If presenters don't have their content online, it's not because it couldn't be done.

[Neil Pate]

You can attend the the CLA summit as a benefit of making it to the CLA certification level. If you are not a CLA then you shouldn't have access to the videos. The CLA summit is all about in person attendance and talking with your peers. And especially this year, there was an extra 2 days of awesome content that was a "must see". Even watching the videos doesn't do it justice, since I got the most value from one on one conversations. Perhaps in the future, this event will be open to all, but now it isn't.

 

Mark is not paid to record videos and has not been instructed to do so by NI or anyone else (maybe some presenters have asked - no idea). He does it out of his own passion. It's quite possible that NI might prevent him from recording videos in the future at all events. This is entirely in their legal right to do so. After all, this is paid content distributed for free (CLA summit and NIWeek sessions). So please be thankful and please don't stir the pot. If you know how to find the links and are lucky then great. The YouTube solution brings a lot of attention which I think Mark's recordings should not get, in my opinion.

 

As far as the presenters. There is technology today that you can use to record your audio and your computer screen. You can even attach a webcam if you want to be fancy. If presenters don't have their content online, it's not because it couldn't be done.

 

Michael, this is a slippery slope. I would have loved to attend the summit this year, but other commitments kept me away. The extra two days of content were restricted by an NDA, which I signed, so should I be allowed to see the videos even though I was not able to attend in person?

 

Regarding the other content, I feel it is down to the presenters on an individual basis to opt-in to allow their videos to be shown on youtube. I am pretty sure NI has no claim the the IP in those videos, and would be foolish to prevent non-restricted content from being made public. Although only CLAs were invited to the summit, but I do not really think it is fair to restrict that content from non CLAs who want to take the time (probably their own personal time) to watch it and perhaps learn something. The world needs more people skilled in LabVIEW in my opinion. The CLA summit is not quite as closed as you think to non-CLAs, there is actually a precedent already set in that the first CLA summit in Europe, held at NI UK HQ in Newbury was open to CLD as well.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Michael, this is a slippery slope. I would have loved to attend the summit this year, but other commitments kept me away. The extra two days of content were restricted by an NDA, which I signed, so should I be allowed to see the videos even though I was not able to attend in person?

 

Regarding the other content, I feel it is down to the presenters on an individual basis to opt-in to allow their videos to be shown on youtube. I am pretty sure NI has no claim the the IP in those videos, and would be foolish to prevent non-restricted content from being made public. Although only CLAs were invited to the summit, but I do not really think it is fair to restrict that content from non CLAs who want to take the time (probably their own personal time) to watch it and perhaps learn something. The world needs more people skilled in LabVIEW in my opinion. The CLA summit is not quite as closed as you think to non-CLAs, there is actually a precedent already set in that the first CLA summit in Europe, held at NI UK HQ in Newbury was open to CLD as well.

 

I hope my personal record stands clear that I am a huge fan of giving away content away freely and am very community focussed. So don't take this the wrong way. Of course the content creators are free to do so as they please with their content. I'm not arguing against that at all. I wish more content creators would push their stuff online, but that's another discussion. NI has chosen to make the summit a special event, that is compelling enough that non-CLAs put extra effort into becoming certified just to attend the event. If you could get the content freely, then the certification has less value. This year, there was a lot of effort made to restructure the organization of it, so it's better managed. But I think this value statement remains. Again, NI could re-think their approach to this in the future. Perhaps if all the CLAs signed a petition and voted for it, then NI would do so? We all have a voice. How do other CLAs feel about this?

 

Now for those that are CLAs and could not attend in person. Then an argument could be made for providing access to the content in a private way. However, one reason this hasn't happened is because it requires an investment in backend systems and people to make it work. We tried this last year and it was a fail. The best solution is still to have a camera and a tripod in the room. However, the private video distribution is problematic. These are solvable problems but require resource commitments. NI should just pay Mark and buy extra equipment to support him. Then have their internal web team add a special page on the CLA community to host the videos. It can be done. BTW, privately listed Youtube videos work as advertized. I've used this feature many times. So this videos can be embedded in the CLA community page perhaps.

 

This year we had record attendance 170 people. At some point, the summit will outgrow the free NI campus and require an external paid venue. Questions are being raised about whether to charge for attending the summit. No decisions have been made but, I can see the request about giving away the content freely, to be questioned even further in that context. However the fact that you need to pay to get certified is also kind of the same. However as stated above. It's not so much about the money as it is the exclusivity.

 

The niweek videos is a different issue. I have quite a bit of experience attending non-ni conferences and trade shows. NIWeek is a hybrid of trade-show and conference. Little known fact. You could attend niweek for free if you just want to visit the show floor and view the keynotes (which now stream online). If you want to see the sessions you have to pay. I've been to many conferences that provide the video recordings of the sessions online for a price. There are many models to this. There is usually a separate ticket price for those that just want the videos. Or the videos could be an add-on price to the main conference ticket. Others just add the cost of the videos to the ticket price. However in all cases, the videos were private to those that paid. Of course to support this, you have to outsource video recording and management. It's a huge task requiring a camera in every room with a camera-person for each, etc.

 

Now NI already outsources the NIWeek audio\video already. The session room audio and keynote video is by an external company. NI could probably pay a fee to have them record the sessions as well. I think if people ask for it, NI will do it. But I'm sure they will have to consider the funding for it. I would.

• Is this a marketing investment, give them away for free? What about those that paid to get in? Won't they feel cheated?
• is this a separate price you charge?
• What if they added it to the niweek sessions ticket price?
• What will any of the above do to attendance? Does it matter?

So now in this possible future world. Where does Mark fit into it?

 

So, thank you Mark for doing what you do and staying under the radar so-to-speak and doing it all on donated time. I know I couldn't do it, even though I considered it seriously for a while.

 

If you are a content creator, then consider online distribution of your presentations as part of your strategy. It's not just about the powerpoint slide deck anymore.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

There is also one other aspect to the CLA content not mentioned. I think Aristos Queue touched on this. The fact that content is not made widely accessible allows NI staff to be more candid and open about ideas and have discussions that could not happen in a public forum. I'd hate to lose that.

[viSci]

All good points!  I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate the generosity of the LV and LAVA community.  I think the issue here is that there is an unrepresented group of LV folks who might call themselves NCLA's (Non-Certified LabVIEW Architect's).  The CLA has little business or personal value for me so I have not pursued it,  I maintain my CLD only because it is a condition for my Alliance membership.   I am however interested in all advance topics in LV software engineering and I might think about going to a CLA summit if they become open to CLD's.  I guess what irks me is the notion that I would not be allowed to even view the CLA material, no matter what, even if I paid for the access.  Perhaps in the future NIWEEK will offer more CLA level sessions (which is the only reason I would want to go).

[ShaunR]

So now in this possible future world. Where does Mark fit into it?

 

He fits into it by disseminating talks from elitist, closed, shop conferences for as long as he can.

 

The CLA orgies should be considered more like TED Talks than old boys' networking dinners. From what I have seen, the speakers seem to feel that way and the sessions certainly don't fit the sales pitch format so I am left wondering wonder why your arguing for Christmas.

Edited March 15, 2015 by ShaunR

[Michael Aivaliotis]

He fits into it by disseminating talks from elitist, closed, shop conferences for as long as he can.

 

The CLA orgies should be considered more like TED Talks than old boys' networking dinners. From what I have seen, the speakers seem to feel that way and the sessions certainly don't fit the sales pitch format so I am left wondering wonder why your arguing for Christmas.

 

I don't have a problem paying for stuff that adds value to my personal growth and also conveniently allows me to avoid traveling to Austin in August.

 

Content doesn't only come from NI BTW. We all have it in us to present our knowledge and experience to the masses. Not having a venue isn't an excuse anymore. Now that the platforms are free and open to all. Go for it. NI of course has incentive to do it. But I'm sure there are many local LabVIEW user groups across the world with presentations that never see the light of day outside of the 4 walls of those meeting rooms. - right?

[Michael Aivaliotis]

All good points!  I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate the generosity of the LV and LAVA community.  I think the issue here is that there is an unrepresented group of LV folks who might call themselves NCLA's (Non-Certified LabVIEW Architect's).  The CLA has little business or personal value for me so I have not pursued it,  I maintain my CLD only because it is a condition for my Alliance membership.   I am however interested in all advance topics in LV software engineering and I might think about going to a CLA summit if they become open to CLD's.  I guess what irks me is the notion that I would not be allowed to even view the CLA material, no matter what, even if I paid for the access.  Perhaps in the future NIWEEK will offer more CLA level sessions (which is the only reason I would want to go).

 

Good points. NI came up with the CLA certification program so they can do with it what they want right? It just so happens that in order to become a CLA, it implies a certain level of effort and commitment to the language. Also a certain level of experience. So naturally the CLA summit draws presenters at a higher level. So the presentations are of higher quality. - usually. But that's no guarantee.

 

Hey Mike, why don't you and I organize our own summit?

[ShaunR]

But I'm sure there are many local LabVIEW user groups across the world with presentations that never see the light of day outside of the 4 walls of those meeting rooms. - right?

Local user groups don't have any barrier to entry, as far as I'm aware and some are talking about videoing them because of Marks sterling work. Is there a point in there somewhere or were you replying to someone else? I was pointing out that the issue is elitism, not financing or dissemination and you seemed to be arguing for entrenching that elitism..

Edited March 15, 2015 by ShaunR

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Local user groups don't have any barrier to entry, as far as I'm aware and some are talking about videoing them because of Marks sterling work. Is there a point in there somewhere or were you replying to someone else? I was pointing out that the issue is elitism, not financing or dissemination and you seemed to be arguing for entrenching that elitism..

 

So I understand your view. Anything paid for is elitism?

[ShaunR]

So I understand your view. Anything paid for is elitism?

 

No. I hope you are just being facetious.

 

As an aside. What happened to the VI shots podcasts?

[Michael Aivaliotis]

As an aside. What happened to the VI shots podcasts?

 

They'll be back soon. Not forgotten. Just on a break until I can reorganize my life so I can fit it in again. A major change happened where I'm now an independant consultant. So now any free time I had before is diverted to billable time. I need to change that. I'm a work in progress.

[shoneill]

Regarding the situation with information communicated under NDA or anything similar I think the vast majority of us are clear about this.  Unless you happen to also be under NDA (which I am) you legally should not be a recipient of the information.  End of.  I don't think a discussion on this level is worth the effort.  The legal aspect is relatively clear.  There are at least two videos of the CLA 2015 meeting which probably fall into this category.

 

The easiest point to address is the idea that non-CLAs will somehow not be capable of properly understanding the messages to be communicated by such videos.  On a purely technical note, I don't think the level of the presentations is such that non-CLAs would have a hard a time identifying, following and understanding the true idea behind them at all.

 

Full disclosure: I detest elitism.  The argument from authority does not sit well with me.  It makes one side angry and the other side blind.  If the CLAs wish to pursue this route than I see dark times ahead for the community.  If anything the group should probably be more transparent than any other, setting the example for others to follow.  Information has no ego.

 

With many internationally reknowned universities offering much of their courses online for free, the approach to sharing knowledge seems to be changing.  It's now quite possible to watch a 17-video series on how the physiology of the brain affects our every day experinces and how these developments were evolved and what consequences they have for psychiatric disorders.  For free.  Do these universities worry if the people watching them can understand the information? No, they don't.  Why should we?

[crelf]

The CLA has little business or personal value for me so I have not pursued it... I guess what irks me is the notion that I would not be allowed to even view the CLA material...

 

Sounds to me like the CLA would, indeed, have value to you.

[viSci]

No I am hoping the mountain will come to me  I am resident in the egalitarian camp. If someone has some valuable insight or a new and better way of doing something I would hope they would share that information in the public domain.  If they would like the honor of first presenting the idea in a closed forum that seems perfectly reasonable.  BTW you can keep any of the NI NDA related tidbits, they are probably about as exciting as the LV2015 beta features