|
|
BarcampUKGovweb |
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 Good point about the turnaround too, I'll bear that in mind. As for The most important thing is that my suggestion has stimulated some On 7 Jan 2008, at 16:05, Lloyd Davis wrote: > Jeremy, thank you for all this hard work and well done for getting a > I share Rob's thoughts on the structure and support his suggestion - I > One other point - I saw on the wiki the statement that 20 minutes is a > I'm up for helping more practically, but I'm confused now as to where/ > 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 >> Some of the best presentations I've seen have been a synthesis of >> My suggestion, for consideration by others, is that we drop the >> Rob >> On Jan 6, 2008 11:02 PM, Jeremygould <jeremygo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Fair points Richard. Its not meant to be prescriptive but more >>> All we are trying to do is stimulate some debate around the content >>> I still think there's plenty of space in the day for the kind of >>> Incidentally, I understand that there is a further event planned for >>> Jeremy >>> On 6 Jan 2008, at 22:19, memespring wrote: >>>> Great stuff! >>>> Sorry if this sounds a little negative, but the structure sounds a >>>> Unconference things like this Ive been to before have worked >>>> Great thats its up and running though :) >>>> Richard >>>> -- >>>> Help map the world's online communities:www.groupsnearyou.com
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.
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.
conversation, I hope it can snowball a little more.
> venue (by far the most difficult bit of any undertaking like this)
> 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.
> 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 :)
> how to do that - do give me a shout.
>> Great to see it all coming together!
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> stream titles.
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> stuff you are interested in.
>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>>> best when
>>>> this kind of thing is worked out on the day, or just a random
>>>> allocation of slots/rooms.
>>>> /*
>>>> richard [at] memespring.co.uk
>>>> ++447976 730458
>>>> www.memespring.co.uk
>>>> memespring (twitter/skype/flickr/etc)
>>>> */