- From: Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 22:52:44 +0900
- To: Daniel Buchner <dabuchne@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Juan Benet <juan@benet.ai>, Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Ryan Shea <ryan@blockstack.com>, Blockchain Workshop <public-blockchain-workshop@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE-+aY+jTNYjX2W2Snv9=fO3Mp_91BoX+dfoeCJwLYos37A4aw@mail.gmail.com>
not easy with hundred members. that is the reason I voted on neutral keynote. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Daniel Buchner <dabuchne@microsoft.com> wrote: > Personally, I would much rather see a group of the attendees each give > 5-minute, general, informational lightning talks on their area of focus > (primitives, JS API ideas, identity, etc.), that are not prescriptive or > implementation specific. > > > > I feel this is a neutral, educational way to begin the workshop that will > help people focus on the major areas of opportunity and discussion. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - Daniel > > > > *From:* Juan Benet [mailto:juan@benet.ai] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:23 PM > *To:* Bailey Reutzel <baileyreutzel@gmail.com>; Doug Schepers < > schepers@w3.org> > *Cc:* Ryan Shea <ryan@blockstack.com>; Blockchain Workshop < > public-blockchain-workshop@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Keynote Speaker(s)? > > > > 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/ > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2frandomwalker.info%2f&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=6D8fpXXsKHH60W0AT0utAxwxohqGwg%2ba0eRYDtJ0Bcc%3d> > > 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 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fyoutu.be%2fUVuUZm4l-ss%3ft%3d14155&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=QWTjucX36xb5A5wsCoiOPPDPoNkoLcSK1F8nmd4z240%3d>) > 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 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fOpen_Space_Technology&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ydZLTuY5%2fRln9MNKJpyESZX0n0GgN0uiUcr5dRdPg1o%3d> > > > 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/ > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theworldcafe.com%2f&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=LJYWmMu4%2fmL13DC47gXGNGc2T9SheO962LywQVNrDdo%3d> > or my > closely related > Braid (does more mixing) > > http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2009/09/facilitating-small-gatherings-using-the-braid.html > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lifewithalacrity.com%2f2009%2f09%2ffacilitating-small-gatherings-using-the-braid.html&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cbh1JfQNl%2bbxnc6Axj3lsYsz9uGlIJ5xve8XmYHaXG8%3d> > > > 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 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fPoster_session&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=eKlBSzPBDbYnG8I2wYJ%2bb2FWYt8%2fM1ijhT%2fO7Aj4ukM%3d> > > > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fgavofyork&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=5r%2bppPhs6Cb5wdeOzOLG3c6LRmc4OP1rrT2Jcazq%2fCQ%3d>> > <https://uk..linkedin.com/in/gavin-wood-88843316 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flinkedin.com%2fin%2fgavin-wood-88843316&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sLq6Avt4kowjNPV0tyS4GEbCj%2fibGfF98gOyyTbG6cI%3d> > > > > > *This communication and any attachments are confidential.* > > > This communication and any attachments are confidential. > > > > > -- > Follow me at @trentmc0 <https://twitter.com/trentmc0 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2ftrentmc0&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U6nZy5IRtWQUUHXa9ini0mr5XOBcOTYywjekalKgogw%3d> > > > http://trent.st > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ftrent.st&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=JYZLZAn8Ku%2fdw5q7aXv0m6Ajj285RHotc2SBcp%2bOy%2bs%3d> > > > > > -- > http://nehanaru.la > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fnehanaru.la&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=tGrRl6Mg23OumcQqS36vt6giocyzsSKfkE0kodIZSmw%3d> > | @neha > > > > > -- > > *Ryan Shea* /blockstack.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fblockstack.com&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=rHvm5XhoW1nUFKl%2bWRFqDpCvHn0knbeb7K6%2foy6nFZY%3d> > <http://blockstack.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fblockstack.com&data=01%7c01%7cdabuchne%40microsoft.com%7c64cfd81f512b4a75de9508d37b05ee6f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=rHvm5XhoW1nUFKl%2bWRFqDpCvHn0knbeb7K6%2foy6nFZY%3d> > >/ > > /Cell: 650-564-7432 <tel:650-564-7432>/ > > /Skype: _ryaneshea_/ > > > > > > -- Mountie Lee PayGate CTO, CISSP Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net
Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 13:53:36 UTC