Re: Keynote Speaker(s)?

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