> 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.

>>> Great thats its up and running though :)

>>> Richard

>>> --
>>> /*
>>> richard [at] memespring.co.uk
>>> ++447976 730458
>>> www.memespring.co.uk
>>> memespring (twitter/skype/flickr/etc)

>>> Help map the world's online communities: www.groupsnearyou.com
>>> */