[ event ] Announcing SingleLifeCamp - July 12 in San Francisco + call for volunteers

[Rachel M. Murray]

Hello folks,

We're announcing a Barcamp with a twist occurring July 12th here in
San Francisco - SingleLifeCamp. You'll find details on the wiki -
http://barcamp.pbworks.com/SingleLifeCampSF09 and eventually on our
own domain and over on Crowdvine, who have generously become a sponsor
to become a social network for the event. Let's hear it for great
tech companies who help build communities!

Here's a description of the event:

"It’s All About The One - You! Join Bay Area singles at
SingleLifeCamp, an offline social networking experience for single
ones. It's a BarCamp or unconference experience where you’ll create
the event as the day progresses identifying topics of personal
interest. As more of us are choosing to live single, we need
information about stuff besides finding a date, getting a mate or
hooking up. Over a yummy Sunday Brunch, small group sessions, and a
fantasy reception we’ll pool resources on how to get stuff done in the
other 95% of our life. Like: running a company solo, buying a house on
your own, dining for one, your get my drift. It’s not a dating event…
SingleLifeCamp is devoted to celebrating a new definition of “the one”
- the singular single".

We're a small team looking for volunteers. As I'm sure you know,
running an event is good karma - we're not doing it for money, but the
experience itself :)

We're looking for folks who want to help both with the day of the
event (basic event management stuff of setting up food etc.) as well
as the preplanning (i.e. contacting sponsors, getting their logos,
adding them to the site etc. etc.). Especially interested if you've
also got some WordPress or a nice Roladex, too ;)

We'll put up details of the event up on the official barcamp.org site
and our own Web site, going up shortly.

Looking forward to hearing from folks! You can contact me at
rachel...@gmail.com or Jerusha Stewart at
jer...@thelastsinglegirlintheworld.com

Regards,

Rachel

[BarCamp Planners]

Well, that certainly is an interesting idea for a BarCamp...!

Perhaps you could, uhm, provide some more guidance about the type of people that you're looking for as volunteers? Are you open to all comers or only those who are... unattached?

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal site: http://factoryjoe.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

[Rachel M. Murray]

Hey Chris (and other barcampers),

thanks for replying - we're most definitely open to everyone single or
not :) The point of the event is to have discussions (and fun) about
issues related to relationships and how to manage the finer points in
life - there are plenty of topics just thinking finance and dating for
starters :) We're hoping we get a good turnout despite the economy -
and it's much, much cheaper than a relationship course, therapy, etc.
etc. and a lot more fun.

We're putting together a web site slowly but surely at
singlelifecamp.com with more information - we welcome volunteers with
open arms. Still lots to do before the event. We're also looking for
sponsors - so all are welcome!

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Rachel

On Jun 18, 2:59 pm, BarCamp Planners <barc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, that certainly is an interesting idea for a BarCamp...!
> Perhaps you could, uhm, provide some more guidance about the type of people
> that you're looking for as volunteers? Are you open to all comers or only
> those who are... unattached?
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Rachel M. Murray

> <rachelmmur...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > rachelmmur...@gmail.com or Jerusha Stewart at
> > jeru...@thelastsinglegirlintheworld.com

[Chris Messina]

Oh, and by the way, most BarCamps tend to be free — so that might be a bit of a barrier to getting attendees. 

Chris

[blephen]

Chris,

When terminology is appropriated, it's meaning changes. Technically
this event should have been called an unconference, but the organizers
preferred the sound of "camp." Since they come from outside "the
community," they weren't sensitive to the effect that this (to them,
subtle) difference might have. If the misappropriation of the term
puts peeps off, then that's an issue, but hopefully enough smart folks
will give them a pass on that and come anyway (assuming they're
sufficiently motivated to pony up 40.00). My interest in the event
extends from the mainstreaming of a concept that til now has almost
exclusively been the domain of tech and biz. i think it's a trend, but
it remains to be seen whether it will translate since, as we all know,
participant driven events depend entirely on the quality of peeps they
attract. hope to see you there.

-J-

Jeff Schwartz, disrupter@large
www.disruptivestrategies.com
Twitter:http://twitter.com/blephen

"No Maps for these territories" --William Gibson

> Oh, and by the way, most BarCamps tend to be free — so that might be a bit
> of a barrier to getting attendees.
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Rachel M. Murray

> <rachelmmur...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > >http://barcamp.pbworks.com/SingleLifeCampSF09and eventually on our

[Kaliya]

Rachel,

$40 does not seem like that much of a barrier to entry.

I think charging "something" helps create a contract between the
organizer and the attendee (so the attendee actually shows up).

If there are industries hosting camps/unconferences where there are no
obvious sponsors then charging something to attendees to recover costs
may be the only viable way to put an event on.

Something I wrote about unconferences an money on my blog (and the
She's Geeky blog) some might find useful.
http://www.unconference.net/?p=87

-Kaliya

On Jun 19, 4:59 pm, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and by the way, most BarCamps tend to be free — so that might be a bit
> of a barrier to getting attendees.
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Rachel M. Murray

> <rachelmmur...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > >http://barcamp.pbworks.com/SingleLifeCampSF09and eventually on our

[whurley]

Hi Kaliya,

That's an interesting post but with all due respect I think the logic
is flawed. Money does not (and this can be proven via system theory)
create a "bond" between the participant and the event. Nor does it
provide any additional incentive to show up. These are common
misconceptions across all conference organizers, conference and
unconference alike.

The number one way to get higher, more consistent attendance at an
event is simple. As Chris has said time and time again the price is
participation. When you create an event that allows all of the
attendees to participate in some meaningful fashion, attendance always
becomes more predictable and reliable. I have proven this time and
time again with various camps. The trick is simple, people have to
feel that it is their event, not yours. This is why some time ago some
of us stopped using the term "organizer" and started using the term
"instigator". At an unconference, the system model for success is that
everyone must have a vested interest, not a financial one.

In short, "attendance" is irrelevant. It's not what you should be
focused on. The key to a successful camp can be summed up in one word;
participation. I have an easy way to judge the success of my camps. I
don't want hundreds of warm bodies witting in seats. I simply want the
highest percentage (I aim for 80%) of people to be active in the event
in one way or another. This doesn't just mean speaking, but also
setting up, tearing down, volunteering at help desk, and behind the
scenes. There's always plenty to do and when people feel that the
"community" is depending on them they are far more likely to come
through.

Just my two cents,
whurley

--
whurley
+1 (512) 788-5353
vis...@whurley.com
http://whurley.com

Read my weekly column on InfoWorld:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/whurley/

Follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/whurley

[Chris Messina]

Thanks Whurley — I think you make an important point.

I'm also sympathetic to Kaliya's point. 

Ultimately I think it comes down to whether you want to be an organizer or, as Whurley said, an instigator.

Charging people to attend an event does sometimes create an anchoring incentive that gets people to show up because they put their money down. The amount of money that will create this anchor will vary from community to community. The problem that I've seen with charging for an event is that it leads to the relationship between the "organizer" and "attendee", rather than the "instigator" and "participant" (not always, but a good deal of the time). This is especially true in situations where people are unfamiliar with the open space event model. 

More directly: paying for an event creates an expectation that someone else will look out for one's satisfaction. It's a way to outsource responsibility. And one of the things that has made the BarCamps that I've helped instigate successful is communicating a sense that the participants "own" the event and are responsible for making the event "better than it would have been had they not showed up."

Nor is it enough to just say that either — as the instigator, you must also provide graded ways to participate, from novice to expert, for public speakers to wallflowers. Typically that involves enlisting the speaker to find a note taker in her session who will take notes and then transcribe them to the wiki; it might mean making sure that lunch is set up or that the coffee station is kept clean... in some ways, the job of the instigator is to anticipate people's needs and desires throughout the event and then sign up people to help meet them. I think this leads to a greater level of satisfaction for everyone involved (since they're truly contributing to improving the event) but also leads to a higher level of respect and appreciation between event-goers, as they should ideally get the sense that it's people just like them who have to clean up after one another.

All of this materially changes the focus and impetus of the event of course, and means that you might end up spending more time on logistics up front, during and at the end compared with a "produced" event. But therein lies the heart of a "camp" (just like camping in the wilderness!): it's not about the subject-matter or the sessions — it's about getting back in touch with people around you, having solid one-on-one interactions without preconditions, where there should be no emphasis on celebrity, and where everyone can make an equal contribution to the whole.

It's not surprising to me that, almost five years from the original BarCamp, we're seeing some deviations from the original spirit of BarCamp, nor that some camps are moving towards a more produced affair. As the idea of an attendee-driven event spreads, it will be changed to fit into a mold that people are familiar with — just as participant media has become "social media". And that's okay! But I do think that it's important to be familiar with why we chose to do things a certain way, and what the consequences have been when we've deviated from them. Certainly some events will be able to retain the spirit of the thing and charge for the event — it's totally within the realm of possibility, especially if the instigator-organizer sets the expectations up front and communicates clearly what attendee-participants should expect.

The problem with charging for an event WITHOUT first making clear that the dollars aren't the ONLY way that you pay for your spot is that a lot of built-in assumptions come with paying for something. And those assumptions are hard to shake after the fact. So rather than providing the context for serendipitous experiences to occur, as the organizer, you're now put in the position of making sure people are "getting their money's worth", and that typically requires an entirely different set of attitudes and skills than what a typical barcamper brings to the table.

Just my two cents. ;)

Chris

[Frederic Baud]

While I completely agree with the key difference between acting as an
organizer or as an instigator (an unorganizer as also said), I don't
believe asking for money is what defines the 2 cases. As an
unorganizer, you are not charging for an event, you are pooling money
so that some of the physical costs can be covered. I have already
mentioned in other posts the belief that asking for a monetary
participation can help not wasting resources like food. And this goes
very much in line with some of the arguments Kaliya wrote in her post.
But I also think it gives freedom to the community of not depending on
sponsors; and this can make a great difference in some cases.

Now I have a concern that asking for a monetary participation can
damage equal access - which is at the heart of the BarCamp's spirit.
But I think we may find ways to alleviate the problem without
requiring all BarCamps to be free as in free beer.

Just 2 other cents to the pot, :-)

Frederic

> > >> > > >http://barcamp.pbworks.com/SingleLifeCampSF09andeventually on our

> > >> > > > own domain and over on Crowdvine, who have generously become a
> > sponsor
> > >> > > > to become a social network for the event.  Let's hear it for great
> > >> > > > tech companies who help build communities!
>
> > >> > > > Here's a description of the event:
>
> > >> > > > "It’s All About The One - You! Join Bay Area singles at
> > >> > > > SingleLifeCamp, an offline social networking experience for single
> > >> > > > ones. It's a BarCamp or unconference experience where you’ll
> > create
> > >> > > > the event as the day progresses identifying topics of personal
> > >> > > > interest. As more of us are choosing to live single, we need
> > >> > > > information about stuff besides finding a date, getting a mate or
> > >> > > > hooking up.  Over a yummy Sunday Brunch, small group sessions, and
> > a
> > >> > > > fantasy reception we’ll pool resources on how to get stuff done in
> > the
> > >> > > > other 95% of our life. Like: running a company solo, buying a
> > house on
> > >> > > > your own, dining for one, your get my drift. It’s not a dating
> > event…
> > >> > > > SingleLifeCamp is devoted to celebrating a new definition of “the
> > one”
> > >> > > > - the singular single".
>
> > >> > > > We're a small team looking for volunteers.  As I'm
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Chris Messina]

Also a very good point!

Of course you need resources to put on an event -- and they should
come from somewhere other than JUST the instigator's pocket!

Whether they come from donors, participants or sponsors affects the
nature of the event -- and bottom line, these effects should be
considered when orchestrating an event.

Thanks Frederic!

>> > >> > singlelifecamp.com <http://singlelifecamp.com> with more information  - we welcome volunteers

[rb...@sbcglobal.net]

Frederic.
I agree 100%. Plus a statement that anyone who does not feel they can contribute the suggested amount is still welcome. (if you think you have people who will have a problem).
Bob
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederic Baud <freder...@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:17:45
To: BarCamp<bar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [BarCamp] Re: [ event ] Announcing SingleLifeCamp - July 12 in San
Francisco + call for volunteers

[Jeffrey Schwartz]

Good points all! Glad to see folks weighing in and identifying issues they are passionate about. My interest is primarily in how things change, morph and are synthesized as they are appropriated, reinterpreted (mashed-up) by would-be instigators/organizers attempting to recapitulate the Barcamp and/or uncon without necessarily being entirely faithful to the core values expressed by everyone here.  What happens when a concept shifts from being primarily driven by the values inherent to the originary moment and the people surrounding it, to those of the mainstream? 

As Chris noted, the larger fish tends to swallow the whole, but in doing so, is changed as well. The internet itself is a good example. Initially a tool for scientists and the DOD, then students, then the digerati, it was eventually appropriated by business and was transformed into a giant clusterfuck of data that, despite many useful search tools, is difficult and time consuming to navigate for any but the most persistent and well-schooled. Mainstreaming, by definition means that ordinary people lacking cognisence of the criticality of the details, will perforce, appropriate and press into the service of their own agenda, anything that they can. The core values of the mainstream are simply to make money, period. Nothing wrong with that. I don't know anyone who doesn't need at least some compensation for their work regardless of how little. The problem arises when The main objective is so counter to the values of the event, project, program, service, etc. that it effaces the point of the exercise. In which case, to paraphrase Woody Allen in Annie Hall, "we have a dead shark."
Jeffrey Schwartz, disrupter@large
www.DisruptiveStrategies.com
http://disrupteratlarge.blogspot.com
650.450.4040

"No Maps for these Territories."  --William Gibson

[Jeffrey Schwartz]

oops, wasn't finished with that last post, altho it wasn't a bad line to end on.

:-)

to continue....

All transitions are difficult and this one is no exception. Regardless of how we act with regards to events we instigate, we have to accept that our baby has left its nest and is now traveling into new circles which we do not inhabit. Whether it is diluted by the mainstream or becomes a trojan horse (usually a bit of column A 'n  a bit of column B) remains to be seen. As one whose role is to act as a bridge between innovators, instigators, contrarians, disrupters--and the public at large, It's my job to work with both sides--on the one hand to encourage some flexibility within the originary concept--on the other to encourage those who would appropriate it to remain faithful to critical core values, without which, the benefit they are seeking, will not accrue.  

For this particular event, I was too late to make some changes, but in time to make others. The instigators/organizers are, I'm convinced, acting in good faith.  I've chosen my battles carefully.  Does the idea of a restaurant for a venue appeal to me, no. But neither do i think it precludes a successful event. Will the 40 dollar charge be problematic, I doubt it, and volunteering is an option for those who cannot afford it. Is Sunday a good day to have a singles event? Personally, I don't think so, but Burningman decompression is held on a Sunday and it doesn't seem to keep peeps from attending.

As far as I'm concerned, if enough people show up who are smart, inquisitive, thoughtful and participatory by nature, the battle is won.  If we only get people looking for a clue to be spoon fed to them, it's lost. Since I'm promoting the former outcome, I encourage those of you who have an interest in this subject matter to consider casting aside your doubts and help make it happen.  Come, bring your friends and we'll own it.

btw: I do not expect, nor do I think it apropos for people to attend events merely to shore up the castle against the huns. It's not only unnecessary, it won't work. But attending events whose subject matter is of interest and whose instigators/organizers appear to be acting more or less in good faith even if they may be partially misguided in our view, is I think a good idea. While these, soon-to-be ubiquitous "hybrids" may not be as scintillating to us as events we put on ourselves, they are indicative of a movement away from centralized, authoritative social structures and toward a more egalitarian, distributed, participant-driven social architecture. It's inevitable, it's necessary and it's a good thing. Kudos to all who have, and continue to contribute to the acceleration of that trend.  

-J-

Jeffrey Schwartz, disrupter@large
www.DisruptiveStrategies.com
http://disrupteratlarge.blogspot.com
650.450.4040

www.twitter.com/blephen

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreyjschwartz/

"No Maps for these Territories."  --William Gibson

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:39 AM, <rb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:39 AM, <rb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BarCamp" group.
To post to this group, send email to bar...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to barcamp+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/barcamp?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kaliya *]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, whurley <whu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kaliya,

That's an interesting post but with all due respect I think the logic
is flawed. Money does not (and this can be proven via system theory)
create a "bond" between the participant and the event.

I didn't suggest it created a "bond" it creates a "contract - of mutual commitment".
I agree to put resources into manifesting a welcoming good space for the event and you the attendee agree to show up for this effort I have put into making space happen. 
 

Nor does it provide any additional incentive to show up.

It does. If I pay for something I know I am much more likely to show up. Even if it is $10
I know that when I put on events without a fee I have a very hard time figuring out how many people will be there and there. There have been as high as 2/3 no-show rates and I now basically will not work on events where they don't charge something.

How do I "know" this. I have produced, designed and facilitated over 80 events in the past 4 years.

 

These are common misconceptions across all conference organizers, conference and unconference alike.
 
The number one way to get higher, more consistent attendance at an
event is simple. As Chris has said time and time again the price is participation.

 

When you create an event that allows all of the attendees to participate in some meaningful fashion, attendance always becomes more predictable and reliable. I have proven this time and
time again with various camps.

AND someone has to be responsible for soliciting sponsors and for managing caterers and figuring out paying the venue and other costs associated with an event that are often "unseen" by those who attend or event "participate" in a barcamp.

Perhaps my perspective about money and unconferences is different because I work with older institutions/organizations who are supporting their membership/community coming together for an 'Unconference" and they are used to 'traditional forms' (they have paid conferences regularly) and work with me to help them bridge between the old and the new successfully - (examples include the MassTechnology Leadership Council and the One Club for Art and Copy). They want and value facilitation and are interested in designs that explore other participatory formats like unpanels, or building value network maps that are in my toolbox.  These events bring together busy older professionals come as part of their day job to fully participate the day it happens but are not going to "self organize" a camp - they want to pay for the venue, food, facilitation all the back end stuff.
 

The trick is simple, people have to
feel that it is their event, not yours. This is why some time ago some
of us stopped using the term "organizer" and started using the term
"instigator". At an unconference, the system model for success is that
everyone must have a vested interest, not a financial one.

AND someone or an organization can be putting A LOT of work into making a good event happen and there is nothing dirty or bad about being compensated.  I think it means coming to "peace" with money and its role as an energetic form that has A place in community and community organizing - event manifestation.

I will say again what I often say - I believe in paying good people, good money to do good work.

On a deeper  level  inviting, weaving and connecting community together is arch typically feminine work and to have an insistence that should not be resourced monetarily is to devalue its importance.

-Kaliya

[Michael Collins]

A "singles" Barcamp just sounds stupid to me.   Charging for any barcamp sounds stupid also.  Both of these things miss the whole point of barcamp.

On 7/6/09, Kaliya * <identi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, whurley <whu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kaliya,

That's an interesting post but with all due respect I think the logic
is flawed. Money does not (and this can be proven via system theory)
create a "bond" between the participant and the event.

I didn't suggest it created a "bond" it creates a "contract - of mutual commitment".
I agree to put resources into manifesting a welcoming good space for the event and you the attendee agree to show up for this effort I have put into making space happen. 
 

Nor does it provide any additional incentive to show up.

It does. If I pay for something I know I am much more likely to show up. Even if it is $10

I know that when I put onal forms' (they have paid conferences regularly) and work with me to help them bridge between the old and the new successfully - (examples include the MassTechnology Leadership Council and the One Club for Art and Copy). They want and

-Kaliya

--
--
Michael H. Collins

Tweet me @chupadupa
http://austintex.com

Just because your monkey ran away, It don't necessarily mean the circus is over.

[Frederic Baud]

> AND someone or an organization can be putting A LOT of work into making a
> good event happen and there is nothing dirty or bad about being
> compensated. I think it means coming to "peace" with money and its role as
> an energetic form that has A place in community and community organizing -
> event manifestation.
>
> I will say again what I often say - I believe in paying good people, good
> money to do good work.

Kaliya, I think you've missed the point in the discussion between
organizers and unorganizers.

Organizers may seek to be compensated for their time, but they are not
"good people" to run an unconference.

Unorganizers seek their reward only in the output of the unconference
and not in any monetary compensation.

This makes a huge difference.

Cheers,

Frederic

On Jul 7, 1:14 am, "Kaliya *" <identitywo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> > > >http://barcamp.pbworks.com/SingleLifeCampSF09andeventually on our

> ...
>
> read more »

[Kaliya *]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Frederic Baud <freder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> AND someone or an organization can be putting A LOT of work into making a
> good event happen and there is nothing dirty or bad about being
> compensated.  I think it means coming to "peace" with money and its role as
> an energetic form that has A place in community and community organizing -
> event manifestation.
>
> I will say again what I often say - I believe in paying good people, good
> money to do good work.

Kaliya, I think you've missed the point in the discussion between
organizers and unorganizers.

Organizers may seek to be compensated for their time, but they are not
"good people" to run an unconference.

 

At a certain size, scale and level of professionalism there is a role for paid facilitation and organizing it is not "bad" and the people who do it are not "bad" - my point was to say that the "evilization" of professional facilitators is not really a good thing.   A great example of an amazing unconference that is moving a whole industry forward and this November is coming up on its 9th one is the Internet Identity Workshop - http://www.interenetidentityworkshop.com

There is a role for volunteer run events and they can be great AND there is nothing wrong with paying good people, good money for good work and running events for multiple days for multiple hundreds of people multiple times is work and lots of it.

There are different organizational times and contexts where it makes sense to have a particiapant driven event an unconference and not all of those are "volunteer driven barcamps in someone's offices over the weekend".

unconference - that is participant driven events without pre-set agenda's have been happening for 20-30 years (they were not invented by the barcampers) there are many communities of facilitators and practitioners of many methods that do really amazing work.  They include the Open Space Technology community, World Cafe, Visual Facilitation/Journalism.  Each of them have their own online community where people discuss method and all kinds of things - I encourage some of you to go exploring in them.

Many written about here in the Handbook of Large group methods - http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Large-Group-Methods-Organizations/dp/0787981435

And the change handbook - http://thechangehandbook.com/

Lisa Heft has an Open Space Learning Workshop  happening August 5-7 in San Francisco.
http://bit.ly/pNfwL

I hope you find these resources useful.
I post in an open source manner on my blog basically everything I know about facilitation for anyone else to use and learn from. 

-Kaliya

[Emma Persky]

I think there is a qualitative difference in the style of work that
someone does because they care, i.e. giving their time for free
because they believe that what they are doing is good, and someone who
is paid to do something. I'm not saying there is not a cross over,
there are clearly some people who care about what they do and get
paid, but I would doubt there are many people who don't care about
what they do and yet still do it for free...

We organised the UK's biggest BarCamp (210 people registered through
the door) without paying anyone to do any organisation. I personally
gave many days, if not weeks, of my time (aggregated across a few
months), and I know many of my co planners did the same. Not one of us
ever questioned that we could have been paid for what we did. It's
simply not the done thing. The comments we received in out post event
followup all indicated that our event was as "professional" as many
events which charge heavily for tickets.

I think they key is finding people who are passionate about they type
of Camp you want to run. Or more specifically, inspiring the people
who would be good at running things to go and do it themselves. I know
that I was inspired to start planning BarCampLondon6 by those who came
before me. I wanted to do this because I believed in the event. If you
can inspire people to do the same because they feel it too, then half
the job is done.

I think what separates BarCamps from other unconferences is this exact
issue: the ethos with which they are planned. No one is here to make a
profit, everyone puts in and everyone takes away. Some give more than
others but everyones share of the benefit (new knowledge, not profit)
is shared. If you start paying people to plan then some people are
taking away more than others.

More over, by paying people to do something you create an implcit
relationship of empoyee employer. Someone is calling the shots, and
someone must answer for their actions. You stifle the creativity and
openness which leads to all BarCamps being unique and individual.

I think the BarCampSydney (http://barcamp.org/BarCampSydney5) way of
asking for individual sponsorships is a great way to help fund
BarCamps. There is no implication that you must sponsor, and an
awareness if made that some people can't afford to. We took a similar
approach at BarCampLondon6 and after people had signed up for a ticket
we asked them to donate. We raised almost 20% of our funding this way,
and we think that by tweaking the way we did it could push that up
even higher.

</braindump>

Emma

[Frederic Baud]

Kaliya,

I'm 100% with Emma.

I'm not talking about bad or good in any moral sense. I'm not saying
either that doing a great job being paid is evil, quite the contrary.
What I'm saying is that BarCamp-friendly unconferences do not go along
with paid instigators: money can't buy me love :-) ,... neither
passion.

It's very true that there has been many events run under the Open
Space format for many years. But BarCamp at its heart is not about the
format, it's about equal access; meaning also equal access to play a
role as an unorganizer if someone wishes to join. You can add-up
passion from different unorganizers, sharing money compensation
between a group of organizers is once again not creating the kind of
dynamics BarCamp is trying to promote.

Cheers,

Frederic

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Kaliya *<identitywo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Frederic Baud <fredericb...@gmail.com>

> >http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Large-Group-Methods-Organizations/dp/0...
>
> > And the change handbook -http://thechangehandbook.com/

[Michael Collins]

And BarCamp is not a singles for pay club.  The whole concept is ludicrous.  Give it up and make a singles website that will fail like a whale. 

[Cindy Sue Causey]

As someone who has yet to attend one but who has been learning by
osmosis, I agree 200% with Frederic's 100% agreement with Emma along
with Michael's "BarCamp is not a singles for pay club".. Just sounds
like something that needs to be developed into its own niche on the
web, *if* that doesn't already exist..

My very original and until now unspoken reaction to this entire
exchange was, "Ack, here we go," as in there goes all the "fun" out of
the pure, *unpaid* camaraderie and longer duration flash mob image
invoking concept people are working so hard to put into BarCamp..

Most humbly from Talking Rock.. :)

- :: -
Celebrating Community Choice and Independent Living!

http://claimid.com/butterfly
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA

[Kaliya *]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Michael Collins <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:

And BarCamp is not a singles for pay club.  The whole concept is ludicrous.  Give it up and make a singles website that will fail like a whale. 

I kinda agree with you. singles and barcamps may not go together well.
 
There was a different idea going on in this thread that paid unconferences are not bad  - just different, for different audiences and different purposes then "camps".

I always tell my clients not to call their events "camps" because they are choosing a model that is different then "the camp way" the usually listen to me..

 I never suggested "barcamp organizers be paid" I am not proposing that "barcamps" be anything other then what they are - volunteer driven and if you have a good crew and do one a year.

Please don't lump all unconferences together in the "barcamp philosphy" because people have been doing events that are participant driven for 20 years before barcamp arrived on the scene.

I hope this community of camp organizers can respect there are other forms of unconferences and other ways of organizing participant driven events and that they are valid and different.

There is a role for participant driven events that are professionally produced, designed and facilitated for organizations that already do conferences, already have a membership/community base etc.  I and thousands of other people make livings as facilitators of such events and were doing so for many many years before bacamps happened.

-K
http://www.unconference.net

[Rachel M. Murray]

Hi folks,

Ok, I need to chime in here - speaking for myself alone and none of
the other organizers. I've been a little busy (with a week left
before the event). I appreciate this discussion, because these kinds
of discussions need to happen - evolution happens. I do want to raise
a few points and hope they don't get lost here:

in no particular order:

- the format: I have nothing but respect for the organizers of the
various formats - Barcamps, uncons, etc. etc. The event we're having
on July 12th is inspired by the people like Chris, Tara, Tantek etc.
and all the other creators of alternatives to the usual Conference
Event Industry. Every Barcamp I've been to has been such a better
experience than the traditional conferences - and the opportunity to
actually chat with other people who are passionate about a topic for
me is what's key to the event. When Jerusha and I were at the
original event, we were inspired - and that inspiration's driven the
event. A lot of attendees who are single and who go to singles events
may not have heard of a Barcamp format; the more people who are
exposed to what *real* learning at an event is like, the better -
we're hoping that singles and everyone attending can see the value in
Barcamps, and become converts to the cause as well ;)

-the fee: Having to charge an admission is frustrating. It's not the
point of the event, but a necessary evil. The last thing I want
anything to think is that we're jumping on the bandwagon, and that
we're forcing Barcamps to jump a shark here... we're having the event
because we believe in the format. The only 'money' is paying for the
costs of the event, most of which are the venue itself. As it is, our
sponsors are all pretty much small, local businesses, and we're having
small companies in the relationship business involved because that's
something the organizers believe in as well. The economy is hitting
everyone though - having a sponsor doesn't automatically mean we're
getting oodles of cash here. There may be people who can do this
professionally as facilitators etc. - all the power to them... if they
have a secret they want to share, please do :)

- the purpose: this is not an exclusive 'dating' event, a meat market,
or some sort of cheapo singles Web site launch thing. This is an event
meant to discuss relationships. I had different ideas on what the
branding for the event should be, but regardless of singles/non-single/
whatever-your-status I do think a topic like relationships is
incredibly important ESPECIALLY to discuss in stressful times. We're
all in relationships (even when we're single) and it never hurts to
learn how to have better ones - communities only grow stronger when we
become better people as individuals. There's no formal rule that says
that Barcamps need to be limited to only tech topics - if anything,
hopefully we'll see tech and non-tech topics. In an economic
environment where so many people can't afford to go back to school,
peer-to-peer learning is a good alternative for so many. There are
many relationship courses and gurus out there, but often the courses
and the gurus are there for a different purpose - to make money.
We're here to learn, to meet other people, to participate. That to me
is the core of Barcamps - it's about the learning experience as much
as anything else.

There are plenty of dating web sites - what we wanted to do is create
a real world event with a better format, with an online companion (a
Crowdvine social network, who have been excellent sponsors - highly
recommended for other folks running events in the future). Another
reason why Barcamps work is because they mix the offline and online,
which harnesses the real promise of social media.

Those are a few thoughts - thanks to everyone for the discussions
going on. Sorry if my thoughts are disjointed and scatter

Michael, sorry you feel so strongly against the event. That's a
shame. If you are in the area, you're welcome to attend so we could
hopefully change your mind. I don't think 'we've missed the point',
and your negativity is frustrating, but as the French say, 'chacun a
son gout' - to each their own.

Regards,

Rachel

[Emma Persky]

I actually quite like the idea of the camp. I think there is probably lots if interesting information to share about how we live single lives...

Thinking of sessions on cooking for one, travel for one, parties for one etc etc...

Emma

Sent from my iPhone

[Frederic Baud]

> Please don't lump all unconferences together in the "barcamp philosphy"
> because people have been doing events that are participant driven for 20
> years before barcamp arrived on the scene.
>
> I hope this community of camp organizers can respect there are other forms
> of unconferences and other ways of organizing participant driven events and
> that they are valid and different.

Kaliya,

The whole "barcamp philosophy" is about openness. I think that - in
the tradition of open source - the very notion that people are free to
take ideas and derive them is grounded in the movement. I also think
there are just a set of ideas that would make life easier:

- if you are not a BarCamp, do not call your event a BarCamp
- if you run a camp and want to join other camps on http://barcamp.org,
it would make sense that you're event is BarCamp-friendly
- if your event is not BarCamp-friendly, fine, but could make sense
not calling your event a camp

Cheers,

Frederic

On Jul 7, 11:26 pm, "Kaliya *" <identitywo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -Khttp://www.unconference.net

[Dan Brickley]

On 7/7/09 09:53, Frederic Baud wrote:
>> AND someone or an organization can be putting A LOT of work into making a
>> good event happen and there is nothing dirty or bad about being
>> compensated. I think it means coming to "peace" with money and its role as
>> an energetic form that has A place in community and community organizing -
>> event manifestation.
>>
>> I will say again what I often say - I believe in paying good people, good
>> money to do good work.
>
> Kaliya, I think you've missed the point in the discussion between
> organizers and unorganizers.
>
> Organizers may seek to be compensated for their time, but they are not
> "good people" to run an unconference.
>
> Unorganizers seek their reward only in the output of the unconference
> and not in any monetary compensation.
>
> This makes a huge difference.

There's nothing intrinsically dirty about money, and everyone (including
organizers, activists and facilitators) has to find a way to put food on
their tables and a roof over their head. I've no objection to
contributing on that front. But this discussion raises the prospect of
"creeping conferencization", and I guess that's the cause of most
discomfort here.

We face a problem in the Web community with large conferences - both in
academia and industry - and they're painfully expensive for those
covering their own costs. Not only in terms of fees, but the expectation
of international travel, hotel costs etc.

Examples -

http://java.sun.com/javaone/2009/registration.jsp
Early Bird (Jan. 20 - June 1) $1,795*
Onsite (June 2 - June 5) $1,995*

http://www2009.org/conferences.html
Normal fee: 755 euros

http://www.semantic-conference.com/2009/registration/
Entire event normal fee: $1,795 ($1,695 earlybird)
Conference only: $1,495 ($1,395 earlybird)

There are all kinds of reasons why large events are expensive to run,
and to attend. BarCamps and the like are valuable as they provide
another set of DIY options.

I suspect one reason people defend a zero-cost approach to *Camps is a
concern that we'll lose the universal openness if it becomes
increasingly acceptable to charge for entry.

On the other hand, Kaliya is entirely right that it's super tough to
plan for an effective event without having a solid idea of the number of
likely attendees. Asking for some money up-front is a proven mechanism
for dealing with this.

As a halfway position: how about asking for $ as a deposit, which
attendees could chose to contribute to organizer costs or to claim back
when they attend?

cheers,

Dan

[Ted Young]

Kaliya,

My naive observation is that what you're doing sounds great, but is
simply not a "BarCamp". It may be an "unconference", but to call it a
BarCamp seems a bit misleading. There doesn't appear to be an
upper-limit where cost of admission, compensation, etc. come into a
BarCamp. Once those are included, I feel that it's no longer a
BarCamp.

There are many people who don't know what a BarCamp is and your event
may be their first exposure, so it may not be an issue for your
attendees. But it seems like there may be bad feeling on the part of
those who feel they know what a BarCamp is and feel yours is a misuse
of the term.

All the best,
;ted

[Bryce Lynch]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 04:48, Dan Brickley<dan...@danbri.org> wrote:

> We face a problem in the Web community with large conferences - both in
> academia and industry - and they're painfully expensive for those
> covering their own costs. Not only in terms of fees, but the expectation
> of international travel, hotel costs etc.

Security conferences are much the same way, especially when people
often have to go to them to maintain their certifications. For
example, Blackhat:

-Early registration was $1395us
-Regular registration is $1595us
-Late registration is $1795us
-On-site registration.. you're kidding, right?

More and more organizations are requiring up-to-date certifications
but don't have training budgets so CPEs can be hard to come by these
days. Just reading a couple of books isn't enough for the CISSP, for
example.

--
The Doctor [412/724/301/703]
http://drwho.virtadpt.net/
"I am everywhere."