- From: Trent McConaghy <gtrent@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:19:43 +0200
- To: Gavin Wood <gavin@ethcore.io>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>, Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com>, Daniel Buchner <dabuchne@microsoft.com>, Blockchain Workshop <public-blockchain-workshop@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGgg=Y6QT2bDCA3CXmCCxrj8RNC8jt1r8qq0sz0MpNzoVzYJhw@mail.gmail.com>
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
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:39:20 UTC