- From: Juan Benet <juan@benet.ai>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 01:22:47 +0000
- To: Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Ryan Shea <ryan@blockstack.com>, Blockchain Workshop <public-blockchain-workshop@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEfxk=tzU4+r5J-rtsT_2Yc8ibpevF5VPwfUrXfG1NyAOyuiGg@mail.gmail.com>
I'm also against keynotes. Agree with many views expressed here. I support Trent's idea for short (5-7min) lightning talks. ideally not about specific blockchains but about problems, needs for standardization, potential cohesion, etc. On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:35 PM Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Friday, 13 May 2016 08:09:27 UTC