- From: Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:34:22 -0600
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Ryan Shea <ryan@blockstack.com>, Blockchain Workshop <public-blockchain-workshop@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACe8EXd1XMe-zrBsrSCB47NhVuhwGhPmeJ2EmAwP3F0ZrQ=3sA@mail.gmail.com>
Doug-- I still think you make a great point about having a speaker come in to get the conversation started, implant some interesting ideas, etc. Didn't someone suggest an academic? IMO, that would be better since they won't have stake in the game and there won't be a chance of them pushing a product, which is not what people want from this workshop. -B On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > Hi, folks– > > I'm hearing a fairly consistent sentiment against keynotes. (What else did > I expect from a pack of Libertarians? :D) Assuming that y'all represent a > meaningful segment of blockchain folks, I'm now leaning against having a > keynote. > > I made the case for having a keynote, but I'm not yet hearing any strong > voices to reinforce the case for a keynote speaker. > > So, if you do want a keynote speaker, speak now or forever hold your peace. > > I don't know if folks like Stefan or Arvind will still be motivated to > attend if they aren't giving a keynote, but let's hope. > > Regards– > Doug > > On 5/12/16 11:25 AM, Ryan Shea wrote: > >> I vote no on the keynote as well. >> >> I'd be concerned about a bias or slant towards one particular technology >> or platform like Ripple. Combine that with the fact that the industry is >> so young and we're essentially all peers here. >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Rick Dudley <afd@erisindustries.com >> <mailto:afd@erisindustries.com>> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Ryan Shea* /blockstack.com <http://blockstack.com>/ >> >> /Cell: 650-564-7432 <tel:650-564-7432>/ >> >> /Skype: _ryaneshea_/ >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 17:34:51 UTC