Re: Keynote Speaker(s)?

Agree with Gavin, Chris and others - I prefer no keynotes as well. Better
"participatory and collaborative atmosphere".

Lightning talks ok, but only if a fraction of the time, and if there are
better scene-setting mechanisms, all the better.

It would be helpful to have Stefan be part of the workshop though - he's
good, and as Bailey mentioned is doing going through the W3C process with
Interledger. Also his Interledger colleague, Evan Schwartz, is appropriate.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Gavin Wood <gavin@ethcore.io> wrote:

> 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.




-- 
Follow me at @trentmc0 <https://twitter.com/trentmc0>
http://trent.st