> 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
> > > */