Re: Keynote Speaker(s)?

I don't want a keynote. I want to make progress deploying decentralization
technology into browsers. If he wants to have discussion about using
standards bodies to develop technology, great. I don't want to hear about
much else.

Everyone who replied is on the blockchain side of things, I much rather
have a keynote from someone who got some code into production browsers as
an outsider.

Maybe someone from Brave would be interested in joining us?

-Rick
On May 12, 2016 10:39 AM, "Neha Narula" <narula@csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm OK with no keynotes, but I'd like to throw out another, academic
> option.  Arvind Narayanan, a professor in computer science at Princeton:
>
> http://randomwalker.info/
>
> Arvind has done a ton of research in this space and actually wrote a
> textbook on Bitcoin.  I've heard him speak (most recently at the MIT
> Bitcoin expo, link here: https://youtu.be/UVuUZm4l-ss?t=14155) and he's
> an excellent speaker.  He can address high-level overviews and broader
> themes while still incorporating interesting technical content.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Trent McConaghy <gtrent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://nehanaru.la | @neha
>