Re: Keynote Speaker(s)?

I'm also inclined to stay away from keynotes and the like. I feel that the
chances of engendering a participatory and collaborative atmosphere can be
maximised by avoiding the elevation of any particular participants, even
for a well-meaning purpose such as "getting everyone on the same page".
Rather I would look for means to structure and define the events content
and aims well enough beforehand to render any kind of "scene setting"
largely redundant.

On Thursday, 12 May 2016, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Christopher–
>
> I hear you that your preference is for an entirely participatory event.
> I'm less convinced than you, at this point, that everyone is on the same
> page.
>
> Having a thoughtful speaker can set a tone and context, and raise great
> questions that are discussed at the rest of the workshop.
>
> At W3C's recent Advisory Committee meeting, Bruce Schneier spoke on
> security and the "techno-social process" of standards and law, and it
> was the highlight of the event, prompting a lot of useful discussion.
>
> A good keynote speaker can also attract attendees, who might feel more
> incentive to attend for a chance to listen to and interact with the
> speakers.
>
> More replies inline…
>
> On 5/11/16 7:58 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:
>
>> There are a side variety of formats possible. Just a few that I’ve
>> used:
>>
>> * Open Space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology
>>
>
> I'm open to looser agendas, but I am nervous about having a productive
> set of discussions if there's no general set of topics or agenda; I can
> see it descending quickly into rat-holing.
>
> There are also people who won't attend open-agenda workshops because
> there is less assurance of some ROI outcome. If we want to attract the
> right people, do you think an open agenda will be the best way to
> accomplish that? This isn't a rhetorical question… I don't know the
> blockchain community well enough to judge.
>
> (I've anecdotally heard from Asian colleagues that agenda-less meetings
> are sometimes not well-received in their cultures.)
>
>
> * World Cafe http://www.theworldcafe.com/ or my closely related
>> Braid (does more mixing)
>>
>> http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2009/09/facilitating-small-gatherings-using-the-braid.html
>>
>
> This
>
>>
>> sounds interesting, but also a bit complicated to manage with a
> large number of people.
>
> My own thought was that we'd break out into voluntary topic tables,
> where people wander in and out unconference-style, and as topic petered
> out or built up, we'd discover which topics garnered the most interest.
>
>
> * Design Workshop (example of the last one I ran
>>
>> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/event-documents/process/RebootingtheWebOfTrustProcess.pdf
>>
>>
>> )
>
> This also seems a bit complicated and gamified, to me. I'm somewhat
> skeptical of "new system" meetings where everyone has to learn the rules
> on the fly, which seems to inhibit natural conversation flows; they seem
> to be more about the process than the discussion. But I haven't
> experienced this particular variation, and maybe it's really effective.
>
>
> * Lightning Talks (truly 5 minutes talk and 5 minutes Q&A) for a
>> half-day, then election from those for further discussion for rest
>> of day. Repeat 2nd day.
>>
>
> This is more or less what I had in mind.
>
>
> * Poster Sessions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_session
>>
>
> No enough group conversation for my taste.
>
>
> * and there any more…
>>
>
> Yes, many many more. I prefer to keep the rules simple, and maximize the
> group discussion opportunities.
>
>
> Another option is that one of the best graphic facilitators in the
>> world resides in Boston, and we could retain her for $3500 and use
>> whatever process she recommends.
>>
>
> I like this idea, and I'd like to have the drawings for later
> documentation and spreading the word about the event.
>
> It would work well for plenary sessions; I'm not sure how it scales to
> multiple parallel groups discussing different topics.
>
> Also, we don't currently have the budget for this. I'd be even more open
> to it if we had more sponsors.
>
>
> The key point is that the knowledge is in the room, and parallel
>> processes with smaller groups are more likely to emerge with choices
>> for the larger group to explore.
>>
>
> We agree there.
>
>
> Sage on the stage and other serial processes waste energy.
>>
>
> I'm not convinced that's universally true.
>
> (I'm also skeptical of pithy slogans, like "sage on the stage". :P)
>
>
> But I don't want to dictate what format this workshop uses… I am open to
> conversation about it, making sure that we hear from a large number of
> people on the PC what they think will be most effective. I do want to
> settle on format fairly quickly, because it's a topic that can balloon to
> fill all available conversation time.
>
> How should we decide on format, in an efficient way?
>
> Regards–
> Doug
>
>

-- 


Dr. Gavin Wood   Director, Ethcore
email: gavin@ethcore.io
<https://twitter.com/gavofyork>
<https://uk.linkedin.com/in/gavin-wood-88843316>

*This communication and any attachments are confidential.*

-- 
This communication and any attachments are confidential.