dericed/nttw4_rice.txt

## nttw4_rice.txt
#nttw4 talk, December 5, 2019, Dave Rice at #nttw4,
#video at https://twitter.com/nttwconf/status/1202509295973216257

Good morning,

During my first full-time archivist gig, I worked with a large audio collection
and, in adherence to the best practices of my community, would digitize audio
tapes to Broadcast Wave Files. I was a new archivist and working as the only
archivist in a media organization so I felt that relief from looking to the
best practices of our communities as a way of reducing my own decision-making
and defering my judgement that to a best practice. When discussing workflow
with an IT coworker, I heard about FLAC. FLAC is a Free Lossless Audio Codec
that stores audio with efficient lossless compression and integrates fixity
data within the container and stream. My coworker was confused at my
justification for Broadcast Wave Format, made a sincere effort to demonstrate
the preservation features of FLAC, and honestly my ability to defend Broadcast
Wave Format as a best practice was limited. I don't mean to imply that
Broadcast Wave Format isn't a good choice, one of my top two audio preservation
format recommendations, but as I struggled to defend the choice I realized that
I was accepting a recommendation as best practice blindly. We went on to debate
preservation objectives and the advantages and disadvantages of one format
versus the other. Broadcast Wave was certainly the “best practice” in digital
audio archiving, but by the end of the conversion I was questioning why I was
defending it. I reviewed the listservs of archival communities and there was
little or no mention of FLAC. In that context, when I asked, it was almost like
"no know has ever heard of FLAC before". There was a reaction of disruption, as
if "As a community, we've already decided. Why are you asking about this?".

As an archivist, I've had to decide how to store lots of data, and at the time
the best practice appeared to be not to use LTO tape or hard drives, but gold
CDs. The community buzzed with stories of hard drive failures while gold CDs
would resist decomposition for hundreds of years. I considered this, but with
consensus with my colleagues suggested getting an LTO drive. This made me
realize though that there's a danger in holding onto best practices too tightly
in the spirit of permanance while such practices should have expiration dates.
A best practice is only a best practice for now. We should invest more in
sustaining archival collections rather than sustaining a practice. It won't
necessarily matter if the gold CDs last for hundreds of years if I simply have
to rip them all to LTO tape a couple years later.

I also realize that working to make better practices is far more meaningful
than working to implement best practices. As practioners, we should balance any
utilization of a 'best practice' with an investment of time and momentum is
generating better practices.

Archivists struggle to sustain media and metadata into the future. However, the
practices we use to do so are not worthy of the same struggle. If a best
practice is stale, outdated, or exhibits a potential to be improved upon, then
let's do. There's no time to wait for the chance to be consumer of a miracle
solution or products, we need to be constantly nitpick, justify, contribute,
and share.

Often archivists working on new technological challenges must quickly adopt the
tools of related communities, adopting tools made for broadcasters, video
editors, or creative work, but as we try updating our operating system, we know
the pain of trying to maintain those tools once that related community has
moved on. I acknowledge that archivists have to grab onto what works to get the
job done, but we can be more strongly empowered by creating, contributing, and
supporting for ourselves. Just as we need to open our videotape players and
projectors to understand, tinker and fix, just as we need to run our hands
along a film print on a bench or open a video cassette, we have a similar need
with digital equivalents. Whether analog or digital, we should nuture our own
hackers.

Bringing innovation into one’s work can produce meaningful personal
accomplishments; still more meaningful when such innovations can be a solution
shared with others. However, even more impactful innovations may be those that
also act as a building block or foothold for others to build upon or learn
from. For innovation within a community, being a contributor or supporter can
create a bigger impact than being a lone pioneer.

When archivists require services from a vendor, or coworker, or specialist, we
may demand a deployment of meticulous, precise, and reliable practices. We want
the results of the best practice, but need to give space for experimentation
for there to be innovation.

Back in 2012 and 2013, a number of us here worked to contribute ideas, testing,
documentation and code to verion 3 of FFV1. This was at a time when often
jpeg2000 was referred to as the "best practice" to archival video compression.
Sometimes it felt like our efforts weren't fully welcome, as it contributing to
another practice only derails the best one. We'd hear things like "I asked
around, and no one has ever heard of FFV1".

Audiovisual preservation is a community where we’ll lament about a digital dark
age in one room while we’ll discuss the opportunities of digital preservation
in the next room.

I’m grateful for the good work of our instigators and contrarians. For those to
foster innovation through supportive, skill-sharing rather than a demonstration
of exclusive expert knowledge. The field of audiovisual preservation thoguh
contains its share of discouragement to innovation. Trying to improve our
existing opportunities, can be met with resistance by those who consider that
further research and innovation are not needed in an area that has already seen
a pioneer or found a conceptual best practice. Or by those that consider
innovation as credible only from a so-called expert. Additionally organizing
our communities under uncooperative terms such as 'analog vs digital' or 'open
vs proprietary' or 'jpeg2000 vs ffv1' limits our abilities to work stronger
together. Best practices can be better, gatekeepers can be surpassed, and we
together can innovate for ourselves.

In the film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Wonka is demonstrating an
invention of lickable fruity wallpaper. Verona Salt ridicules Wonka to claim
that no one has heard of a Snoozberry before. Willy Wonka changes his tone and
quotes Arthur O’Snaughessy to assert: “We are the music makers and we are the
dreamers of the dreams”. To the extent we can put ourselves into action as
innovators, archivists, activists, and active collaborators, please make music
and please dream dreams. Peace.%
	#nttw4 talk, December 5, 2019, Dave Rice at #nttw4,
	#video at https://twitter.com/nttwconf/status/1202509295973216257

	Good morning,

	During my first full-time archivist gig, I worked with a large audio collection
	and, in adherence to the best practices of my community, would digitize audio
	tapes to Broadcast Wave Files. I was a new archivist and working as the only
	archivist in a media organization so I felt that relief from looking to the
	best practices of our communities as a way of reducing my own decision-making
	and defering my judgement that to a best practice. When discussing workflow
	with an IT coworker, I heard about FLAC. FLAC is a Free Lossless Audio Codec
	that stores audio with efficient lossless compression and integrates fixity
	data within the container and stream. My coworker was confused at my
	justification for Broadcast Wave Format, made a sincere effort to demonstrate
	the preservation features of FLAC, and honestly my ability to defend Broadcast
	Wave Format as a best practice was limited. I don't mean to imply that
	Broadcast Wave Format isn't a good choice, one of my top two audio preservation
	format recommendations, but as I struggled to defend the choice I realized that
	I was accepting a recommendation as best practice blindly. We went on to debate
	preservation objectives and the advantages and disadvantages of one format
	versus the other. Broadcast Wave was certainly the “best practice” in digital
	audio archiving, but by the end of the conversion I was questioning why I was
	defending it. I reviewed the listservs of archival communities and there was
	little or no mention of FLAC. In that context, when I asked, it was almost like
	"no know has ever heard of FLAC before". There was a reaction of disruption, as
	if "As a community, we've already decided. Why are you asking about this?".

	As an archivist, I've had to decide how to store lots of data, and at the time
	the best practice appeared to be not to use LTO tape or hard drives, but gold
	CDs. The community buzzed with stories of hard drive failures while gold CDs
	would resist decomposition for hundreds of years. I considered this, but with
	consensus with my colleagues suggested getting an LTO drive. This made me
	realize though that there's a danger in holding onto best practices too tightly
	in the spirit of permanance while such practices should have expiration dates.
	A best practice is only a best practice for now. We should invest more in
	sustaining archival collections rather than sustaining a practice. It won't
	necessarily matter if the gold CDs last for hundreds of years if I simply have
	to rip them all to LTO tape a couple years later.

	I also realize that working to make better practices is far more meaningful
	than working to implement best practices. As practioners, we should balance any
	utilization of a 'best practice' with an investment of time and momentum is
	generating better practices.

	Archivists struggle to sustain media and metadata into the future. However, the
	practices we use to do so are not worthy of the same struggle. If a best
	practice is stale, outdated, or exhibits a potential to be improved upon, then
	let's do. There's no time to wait for the chance to be consumer of a miracle
	solution or products, we need to be constantly nitpick, justify, contribute,
	and share.

	Often archivists working on new technological challenges must quickly adopt the
	tools of related communities, adopting tools made for broadcasters, video
	editors, or creative work, but as we try updating our operating system, we know
	the pain of trying to maintain those tools once that related community has
	moved on. I acknowledge that archivists have to grab onto what works to get the
	job done, but we can be more strongly empowered by creating, contributing, and
	supporting for ourselves. Just as we need to open our videotape players and
	projectors to understand, tinker and fix, just as we need to run our hands
	along a film print on a bench or open a video cassette, we have a similar need
	with digital equivalents. Whether analog or digital, we should nuture our own
	hackers.

	Bringing innovation into one’s work can produce meaningful personal
	accomplishments; still more meaningful when such innovations can be a solution
	shared with others. However, even more impactful innovations may be those that
	also act as a building block or foothold for others to build upon or learn
	from. For innovation within a community, being a contributor or supporter can
	create a bigger impact than being a lone pioneer.

	When archivists require services from a vendor, or coworker, or specialist, we
	may demand a deployment of meticulous, precise, and reliable practices. We want
	the results of the best practice, but need to give space for experimentation
	for there to be innovation.

	Back in 2012 and 2013, a number of us here worked to contribute ideas, testing,
	documentation and code to verion 3 of FFV1. This was at a time when often
	jpeg2000 was referred to as the "best practice" to archival video compression.
	Sometimes it felt like our efforts weren't fully welcome, as it contributing to
	another practice only derails the best one. We'd hear things like "I asked
	around, and no one has ever heard of FFV1".

	Audiovisual preservation is a community where we’ll lament about a digital dark
	age in one room while we’ll discuss the opportunities of digital preservation
	in the next room.

	I’m grateful for the good work of our instigators and contrarians. For those to
	foster innovation through supportive, skill-sharing rather than a demonstration
	of exclusive expert knowledge. The field of audiovisual preservation thoguh
	contains its share of discouragement to innovation. Trying to improve our
	existing opportunities, can be met with resistance by those who consider that
	further research and innovation are not needed in an area that has already seen
	a pioneer or found a conceptual best practice. Or by those that consider
	innovation as credible only from a so-called expert. Additionally organizing
	our communities under uncooperative terms such as 'analog vs digital' or 'open
	vs proprietary' or 'jpeg2000 vs ffv1' limits our abilities to work stronger
	together. Best practices can be better, gatekeepers can be surpassed, and we
	together can innovate for ourselves.

	In the film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Wonka is demonstrating an
	invention of lickable fruity wallpaper. Verona Salt ridicules Wonka to claim
	that no one has heard of a Snoozberry before. Willy Wonka changes his tone and
	quotes Arthur O’Snaughessy to assert: “We are the music makers and we are the
	dreamers of the dreams”. To the extent we can put ourselves into action as
	innovators, archivists, activists, and active collaborators, please make music
	and please dream dreams. Peace.%