Note: only around half of those who have indicated they are coming to
the barcamp have signed up for this Google group :-( so I've duel
posted the details on here and my blog (with links to both on the
barcamp wiki page) in the vain hope that everyone will get to see the
details. Its all good news!, can somebody kick off a thread on wants/
offers for sessions?:
After much running around, fingers crossed, and baited breath, the
barcamp is finally starting to look like a proper event. I've had
quite a few messages recently asking for updates on the organisational
details for barcamp, I'm sorry I've not been able to confirm things
before now.
So, let me tell you that:
1. The event is going to run on one day only - Saturday 26th
January from about 9.15am until 5pm (and maybe afterwards for a drink
or two)
2. Google has kindly agreed to host the event (small company, you
may have heard of them... :-) ). This is particularly excellent news
given many public sector organisations' involvement with them to
improve searchability of their content, use of YouTube to publish
video etc. Its a great fit.
3. To help the many barcamp virgins across government (me
included), and based on the areas of interest indicated plus
subsequent conversations I and others have had leading up to the
event, we are suggesting a structure for the day based on five rough
'streams' of interest. These are:
* Creating web strategy - government-wide, organisational, channel/
initative etc - a vision for future government web
* New platforms and technologies - e.g. use of data, semantic web
etc
* New channels - how to use blogging platforms, YouTube etc, case
studies of usage across government
* Using social media tools in your organisation - practical stuff
around requirements, guidelines, engagement, governance, getting
approval
* Government vs the private sector - lessons we can share,
approaches to collaboration, what is good and bad about our sector etc
These streams are not meant to be prescriptive but designed to give a
framework around which you can decide where and how you can contribute
to the days' success.
There are currently around 75-80 participants signed up to the event.
With 25 slots in the day, it means that at least three individuals can
be involved in the running of each session. Hopefully this reduces the
pressure on some of the participants to contribute and will encourage
collaboration amongst everyone attending.
If you are planning to attend, and you haven't yet joined the Google
group (thanks Dave) set up for the event, I encourage you to do so
now. What you need to do now over the next week is indicate what you
plan to contribute to the day and identify others via the Google group
who you could share a session with.
The nature of the discussion forum means that we can all peer review
each other's ideas and between all of us we should be able to
collaboratively create and shape a schedule for the whole event fairly
easily.
The number of people who have already indicated they wish to
participate is now quite large (but what a cast!) and we may have to
limit entry to the event to those who are actively contributing to
the day. So please begin the conversation as soon as possible.
As we get closer to the day, please update the schedule on the barcamp
wiki page with your proposed session(s). Ideally we'd like to get that
all finalised before Friday 18th January.
If you are a government webby, and still haven't decided whether to
come, hopefully the details above are enough to convince you. I can't
emphasise enough how important it is to have a good mix of those
working inside the government web sector, as well as all the great
people around and outside our work.
(note: can't get the hyperlinks to work here for some reason)
> Note: only around half of those who have indicated they are coming to > the barcamp have signed up for this Google group :-( so I've duel > posted the details on here and my blog (with links to both on the > barcamp wiki page) in the vain hope that everyone will get to see the > details. Its all good news!, can somebody kick off a thread on wants/ > offers for sessions?:
> After much running around, fingers crossed, and baited breath, the > barcamp is finally starting to look like a proper event. I've had > quite a few messages recently asking for updates on the organisational > details for barcamp, I'm sorry I've not been able to confirm things > before now.
> So, let me tell you that:
> 1. The event is going to run on one day only - Saturday 26th > January from about 9.15am until 5pm (and maybe afterwards for a drink > or two) > 2. Google has kindly agreed to host the event (small company, you > may have heard of them... :-) ). This is particularly excellent news > given many public sector organisations' involvement with them to > improve searchability of their content, use of YouTube to publish > video etc. Its a great fit. > 3. To help the many barcamp virgins across government (me > included), and based on the areas of interest indicated plus > subsequent conversations I and others have had leading up to the > event, we are suggesting a structure for the day based on five rough > 'streams' of interest. These are:
> * Creating web strategy - government-wide, organisational, channel/ > initative etc - a vision for future government web > * New platforms and technologies - e.g. use of data, semantic web > etc > * New channels - how to use blogging platforms, YouTube etc, case > studies of usage across government > * Using social media tools in your organisation - practical stuff > around requirements, guidelines, engagement, governance, getting > approval > * Government vs the private sector - lessons we can share, > approaches to collaboration, what is good and bad about our sector etc
> These streams are not meant to be prescriptive but designed to give a > framework around which you can decide where and how you can contribute > to the days' success.
> There are currently around 75-80 participants signed up to the event. > With 25 slots in the day, it means that at least three individuals can > be involved in the running of each session. Hopefully this reduces the > pressure on some of the participants to contribute and will encourage > collaboration amongst everyone attending.
> If you are planning to attend, and you haven't yet joined the Google > group (thanks Dave) set up for the event, I encourage you to do so > now. What you need to do now over the next week is indicate what you > plan to contribute to the day and identify others via the Google group > who you could share a session with.
> The nature of the discussion forum means that we can all peer review > each other's ideas and between all of us we should be able to > collaboratively create and shape a schedule for the whole event fairly > easily.
> The number of people who have already indicated they wish to > participate is now quite large (but what a cast!) and we may have to > limit entry to the event to those who are actively contributing to > the day. So please begin the conversation as soon as possible.
> As we get closer to the day, please update the schedule on the barcamp > wiki page with your proposed session(s). Ideally we'd like to get that > all finalised before Friday 18th January.
> If you are a government webby, and still haven't decided whether to > come, hopefully the details above are enough to convince you. I can't > emphasise enough how important it is to have a good mix of those > working inside the government web sector, as well as all the great > people around and outside our work.
> (note: can't get the hyperlinks to work here for some reason)
jeremygo...@gmail.com wrote: > Note: only around half of those who have indicated they are coming to > the barcamp have signed up for this Google group :-( so I've duel > posted the details on here and my blog (with links to both on the > barcamp wiki page) in the vain hope that everyone will get to see the > details. Its all good news!, can somebody kick off a thread on wants/ > offers for sessions?:
> After much running around, fingers crossed, and baited breath, the > barcamp is finally starting to look like a proper event. I've had > quite a few messages recently asking for updates on the organisational > details for barcamp, I'm sorry I've not been able to confirm things > before now.
> So, let me tell you that:
> 1. The event is going to run on one day only - Saturday 26th > January from about 9.15am until 5pm (and maybe afterwards for a drink > or two) > 2. Google has kindly agreed to host the event (small company, you > may have heard of them... :-) ). This is particularly excellent news > given many public sector organisations' involvement with them to > improve searchability of their content, use of YouTube to publish > video etc. Its a great fit. > 3. To help the many barcamp virgins across government (me > included), and based on the areas of interest indicated plus > subsequent conversations I and others have had leading up to the > event, we are suggesting a structure for the day based on five rough > 'streams' of interest. These are:
> * Creating web strategy - government-wide, organisational, channel/ > initative etc - a vision for future government web > * New platforms and technologies - e.g. use of data, semantic web > etc > * New channels - how to use blogging platforms, YouTube etc, case > studies of usage across government > * Using social media tools in your organisation - practical stuff > around requirements, guidelines, engagement, governance, getting > approval > * Government vs the private sector - lessons we can share, > approaches to collaboration, what is good and bad about our sector etc
> These streams are not meant to be prescriptive but designed to give a > framework around which you can decide where and how you can contribute > to the days' success.
> There are currently around 75-80 participants signed up to the event. > With 25 slots in the day, it means that at least three individuals can > be involved in the running of each session. Hopefully this reduces the > pressure on some of the participants to contribute and will encourage > collaboration amongst everyone attending.
> If you are planning to attend, and you haven't yet joined the Google > group (thanks Dave) set up for the event, I encourage you to do so > now. What you need to do now over the next week is indicate what you > plan to contribute to the day and identify others via the Google group > who you could share a session with.
> The nature of the discussion forum means that we can all peer review > each other's ideas and between all of us we should be able to > collaboratively create and shape a schedule for the whole event fairly > easily.
> The number of people who have already indicated they wish to > participate is now quite large (but what a cast!) and we may have to > limit entry to the event to those who are actively contributing to > the day. So please begin the conversation as soon as possible.
> As we get closer to the day, please update the schedule on the barcamp > wiki page with your proposed session(s). Ideally we'd like to get that > all finalised before Friday 18th January.
> If you are a government webby, and still haven't decided whether to > come, hopefully the details above are enough to convince you. I can't > emphasise enough how important it is to have a good mix of those > working inside the government web sector, as well as all the great > people around and outside our work.
> (note: can't get the hyperlinks to work here for some reason)
Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a
bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to talk on
the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories below
(mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki promises
to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked best when
this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random
allocation of slots/rooms.
Great thats its up and running though :)
Richard
--
/*
richard [at] memespring.co.uk
++447976 730458
www.memespring.co.uk memespring (twitter/skype/flickr/etc)
Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more encouraging for those who have informally expressed an interest but have not signed up yet. In particular, this means those working on web stuff inside government/public sector. There's a list of great people signed up who have loads of expertise and experience to share. But in my mind, if the people who actually do this stuff aren't there then we are all missing a trick and an opportunity to create a common vision about what we should be doing and how.
All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants want.
I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of stuff you are interested in.
Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for March which is much more focused on use of data, mash-ups, civic hacking etc in particular rather than improving the way government uses the web generally, but I am not involved in that one so can't give you any more detail than that. Will ask around though and try and update you.
> Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a > bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to talk on > the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories below > (mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki promises > to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
> Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked best when > this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random > allocation of slots/rooms.
> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content > of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to > expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open > for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants > want.
To that effect, just to get the ball rolling, I've plunged in and filled out a slot as a tentative entry. I felt that I needed to add some background and me and the work, to help people to decide whether it's a worthwhile offering, relevant, etc., so I suspect that each track should probably have its own wiki page, affording more scope for info, comments, etc.
Great Graham and a good idea. The only potential problem is that the wiki is pretty flakey so not a good place for this.
The Google group is a good place for discussion and we could use the pages functionality of the group to create separate whiteboards for each track, effectively a mini-wiki page.
>> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content >> of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to >> expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open >> for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants >> want.
> To that effect, just to get the ball rolling, I've plunged in and > filled out a slot as a tentative entry. I felt that I needed to add > some background and me and the work, to help people to decide whether > it's a worthwhile offering, relevant, etc., so I suspect that each > track should probably have its own wiki page, affording more scope for > info, comments, etc.
At all BarCamp events I've attended in the past, participants made a schedule on each day. This is part of the magic of the unconference: you give the participants freedom to express their ideas, and you maximize, not for structure, but for serendipity.
Some of the best presentations I've seen have been a synthesis of many ideas and defy categorization. It'd be a shame if we miss out on seeing such presentations due to perceived schedule category constraints. Also it'd be a shame if opportunities for cross fertilization are missed because all people who self identify themselves with one stream title don't see any people from the others.
My suggestion, for consideration by others, is that we drop the stream titles.
Rob
On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 PM, Jeremygould <jeremygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more > encouraging for those who have informally expressed an interest but > have not signed up yet. In particular, this means those working on > web stuff inside government/public sector. There's a list of great > people signed up who have loads of expertise and experience to share. > But in my mind, if the people who actually do this stuff aren't there > then we are all missing a trick and an opportunity to create a common > vision about what we should be doing and how.
> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content > of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to > expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open > for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants > want.
> I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of > stuff you are interested in.
> Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for > March which is much more focused on use of data, mash-ups, civic > hacking etc in particular rather than improving the way government > uses the web generally, but I am not involved in that one so can't > give you any more detail than that. Will ask around though and try > and update you.
> Jeremy
> On 6 Jan 2008, at 22:19, memespring wrote:
> > Great stuff!
> > Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a > > bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to talk on > > the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories below > > (mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki promises > > to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
> > Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked best when > > this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random > > allocation of slots/rooms.
Jeremy, thank you for all this hard work and well done for getting a
venue (by far the most difficult bit of any undertaking like this)
I share Rob's thoughts on the structure and support his suggestion - I
know it may feel now like it's a big risk, but taking away the
structure and allowing those people who actually turn up on the day to
set the agenda, based on what they know and think and feel *on the
day* will make for a better outcome in my opinion and experience.
One other point - I saw on the wiki the statement that 20 minutes is a
long time to talk about something. It's not. Especially when you
have several other knowledgeable, opinionated and articulate people in
the room with you. I'd also urge you to think about the turnaround
overhead - Google's offices are lovely (I went to barcamplondon3) but
they haven't perfected the jaunting technology to transport you
instantaneously to the next session :)
I'm up for helping more practically, but I'm confused now as to where/
how to do that - do give me a shout.
All the best
Lloyd
On 7 Jan, 11:23, "Rob ." <rob.02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At all BarCamp events I've attended in the past, participants made a
> schedule on each day. This is part of the magic of the unconference:
> you give the participants freedom to express their ideas, and you
> maximize, not for structure, but for serendipity.
> Some of the best presentations I've seen have been a synthesis of many
> ideas and defy categorization. It'd be a
> shame if we miss out on seeing such presentations due to perceived
> schedule category constraints. Also it'd be a shame if opportunities
> for cross fertilization are missed because all people who self
> identify themselves with one stream title don't see any people from
> the others.
> My suggestion, for consideration by others, is that we drop the stream titles.
> Rob
> On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 PM, Jeremygould <jeremygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more
> > encouraging for those who have informally expressed an interest but
> > have not signed up yet. In particular, this means those working on
> > web stuff inside government/public sector. There's a list of great
> > people signed up who have loads of expertise and experience to share.
> > But in my mind, if the people who actually do this stuff aren't there
> > then we are all missing a trick and an opportunity to create a common
> > vision about what we should be doing and how.
> > All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content
> > of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to
> > expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open
> > for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants
> > want.
> > I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of
> > stuff you are interested in.
> > Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for
> > March which is much more focused on use of data, mash-ups, civic
> > hacking etc in particular rather than improving the way government
> > uses the web generally, but I am not involved in that one so can't
> > give you any more detail than that. Will ask around though and try
> > and update you.
> > Jeremy
> > On 6 Jan 2008, at 22:19, memespring wrote:
> > > Great stuff!
> > > Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a
> > > bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to talk on
> > > the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories below
> > > (mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki promises
> > > to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
> > > Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked best when
> > > this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random
> > > allocation of slots/rooms.
Rob, I'm with you on the unstructured approach to the day. I wasn't trying to be prescriptive but merely suggesting a very loose framework to try and entice those who haven't participated in a barcamp before and are nervous about attending - for example I wasn't suggesting that people stick to a particular stream but this was more to stimulate thoughts about direction of the various sessions, based on discussions I have had in and around Whitehall.
I think its of primary importance that we get as many government webbies coming to the event to meet and mix with those who also work in this area and have skills, experience and thoughts that could assist them. A rough attempt to try and create some of the day's agenda in advance might help that (and of course save some time on the day). I'm not really expecting that the whole day's agenda will be completed before the day but it would be good to know where we might start!
The stream titles are only there as ideas and can be dispensed with or amended depending on what people think?
> At all BarCamp events I've attended in the past, participants made a > schedule on each day. This is part of the magic of the unconference: > you give the participants freedom to express their ideas, and you > maximize, not for structure, but for serendipity.
> Some of the best presentations I've seen have been a synthesis of many > ideas and defy categorization. It'd be a > shame if we miss out on seeing such presentations due to perceived > schedule category constraints. Also it'd be a shame if opportunities > for cross fertilization are missed because all people who self > identify themselves with one stream title don't see any people from > the others.
> My suggestion, for consideration by others, is that we drop the > stream titles.
> Rob
> On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 PM, Jeremygould <jeremygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more >> encouraging for those who have informally expressed an interest but >> have not signed up yet. In particular, this means those working on >> web stuff inside government/public sector. There's a list of great >> people signed up who have loads of expertise and experience to share. >> But in my mind, if the people who actually do this stuff aren't there >> then we are all missing a trick and an opportunity to create a common >> vision about what we should be doing and how.
>> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content >> of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to >> expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open >> for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants >> want.
>> I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of >> stuff you are interested in.
>> Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for >> March which is much more focused on use of data, mash-ups, civic >> hacking etc in particular rather than improving the way government >> uses the web generally, but I am not involved in that one so can't >> give you any more detail than that. Will ask around though and try >> and update you.
>> Jeremy
>> On 6 Jan 2008, at 22:19, memespring wrote:
>>> Great stuff!
>>> Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a >>> bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to >>> talk on >>> the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories below >>> (mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki >>> promises >>> to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
>>> Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked best >>> when >>> this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random >>> allocation of slots/rooms.
Great points Lloyd (and please see my response to Rob).
I too think that 20 mins is too short. As we only have one day I have no problem with more than one person leading or participating in taking a session, hence my attempt to stimulate some sharing of ideas here in the hope that people might hook up before the day.
Good point about the turnaround too, I'll bear that in mind. As for assisting in the organisation, there's another thread on here please feel free to offer any assistance you can - particularly as you have experienced a barcamp at Google before.
The most important thing is that my suggestion has stimulated some conversation, I hope it can snowball a little more.
> Jeremy, thank you for all this hard work and well done for getting a > venue (by far the most difficult bit of any undertaking like this)
> I share Rob's thoughts on the structure and support his suggestion - I > know it may feel now like it's a big risk, but taking away the > structure and allowing those people who actually turn up on the day to > set the agenda, based on what they know and think and feel *on the > day* will make for a better outcome in my opinion and experience.
> One other point - I saw on the wiki the statement that 20 minutes is a > long time to talk about something. It's not. Especially when you > have several other knowledgeable, opinionated and articulate people in > the room with you. I'd also urge you to think about the turnaround > overhead - Google's offices are lovely (I went to barcamplondon3) but > they haven't perfected the jaunting technology to transport you > instantaneously to the next session :)
> I'm up for helping more practically, but I'm confused now as to where/ > how to do that - do give me a shout.
> All the best
> Lloyd
> On 7 Jan, 11:23, "Rob ." <rob.02...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Great to see it all coming together!
>> At all BarCamp events I've attended in the past, participants made a >> schedule on each day. This is part of the magic of the unconference: >> you give the participants freedom to express their ideas, and you >> maximize, not for structure, but for serendipity.
>> Some of the best presentations I've seen have been a synthesis of >> many >> ideas and defy categorization. It'd be a >> shame if we miss out on seeing such presentations due to perceived >> schedule category constraints. Also it'd be a shame if opportunities >> for cross fertilization are missed because all people who self >> identify themselves with one stream title don't see any people from >> the others.
>> My suggestion, for consideration by others, is that we drop the >> stream titles.
>> Rob
>> On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 PM, Jeremygould <jeremygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more >>> encouraging for those who have informally expressed an interest but >>> have not signed up yet. In particular, this means those working on >>> web stuff inside government/public sector. There's a list of great >>> people signed up who have loads of expertise and experience to >>> share. >>> But in my mind, if the people who actually do this stuff aren't >>> there >>> then we are all missing a trick and an opportunity to create a >>> common >>> vision about what we should be doing and how.
>>> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content >>> of the day in advance so that people have an idea about, 1. what to >>> expect and 2. where they might fit in. But it is all completely open >>> for debate, amendment and change depending on what the participants >>> want.
>>> I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of >>> stuff you are interested in.
>>> Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for >>> March which is much more focused on use of data, mash-ups, civic >>> hacking etc in particular rather than improving the way government >>> uses the web generally, but I am not involved in that one so can't >>> give you any more detail than that. Will ask around though and try >>> and update you.
>>> Jeremy
>>> On 6 Jan 2008, at 22:19, memespring wrote:
>>>> Great stuff!
>>>> Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a >>>> bit, um structured. Looking down the list of people wanting to >>>> talk on >>>> the wiki, they dont all seem to fit neatly into the categories >>>> below >>>> (mainly the civic hacking peeps). And it makes what the wiki >>>> promises >>>> to be a very interesting event an bit dry.
>>>> Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked >>>> best when >>>> this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random >>>> allocation of slots/rooms.
