Steph, yes, I gathered as much myself, but I still wanted to put it on the agenda. It links to the bigger problem in nature conservation, and especially funding : all projects are required to be effective and successful, scalable, profitable and so on (not to mention the paper trail that applicants need to produce to prove it ). It makes sense from the donors' perspective, because if a project is not at least one of these, then it is a waste of money an how do they explain that to the public and the donors' donors. On the other hand, the IMHO ( H for honest ) over emphasis on this requirement is counterproductive and it does not fit in the world of tech development.

To start with the latter, as we all know, in the world of tech VC and startups, people are very used to the idea that a tech invention is not successful. I've read that if you haven't had two failed startups behind you, you're a better contender with your next one. 9 Out of 10 will fail and the remaining one will more than make up for the loss, is the idea. This way of looking at projects fits very well in this tech oriented forum.

Then the counter productive part : with a funding climate like that, who is going to take risks with tech development for nature conservation? Seriously, anybody reading this: if you raise your hand, please do get in touch, because I am curious how you look at the issue and how you deal with it. Whereas I do agree that nature conservation as a whole needs to be successful, I don't believe that the sponsors' stress on it for individual projects is successful itself. Nature's degradation has developed so far ( call me a pessimist ), that we need to take risks and find out if ( and hope that ) what works for silicon valley can work for nature.

Kudos for your attempt at the 'Technical difficulties'. I didn't know about it. Maybe we ( but I mean you, of course  ;-) can tinker with the formula. Ask people to talk about how they overcame problems in some detail, because then it is a success story again. ( They could earn a badge! ) And if the recording is an issue, then don't record, or work on anonymity with temporary accounts, TOR, voice scramblers and the camera off. Maybe people are willing to write about their failures instead of doing a live presentation. That way, one has absolute control over anonymizing individuals and hiding the project from being identified. Little risk of a slip of the tongue. 

Thanks for your thoughts on the importance of sharing more about failure in our unique sector. You bring up some very valid points @Frank_van_der_Most  and I think the perspective of 'learning by doing' is quite essential. I've shared below some stories I've covered from our East Africa community that touch on this and the perspective that has emerged has been on learning from these experiences and developing with more insight to solve conservation challenges more effectively. I hope you will find these interesting and useful.

LOL, GIFs make communication so much cooler!!! I wonder if we have a tech4wildlife GIF? That would be super cool! 

Amazing, very well put Talia! 

Awesome, thanks for the summary!