StartupCamp feedback
Norman Young
Great event. Active crowd. Good turn-out. Fun time. Worthwhile. Thanks.
Highlights:
- Simon kept things moving along well
- The audience heckling added much of the value
- The wi-fi access has improved dramatically, i.e., it works now
- 6 to 9pm weekday works well
Suggestions:
1. Generally, I'd like to see the timing tightened up just a little
bit more. By the dying minutes of most presentations, the room was
noisy with folks chatting amongst themselves.
2. Further to that end, announcements should be quick, verbal-only
announcements. I.e., with no Powerpoint, and with a shorter time
limit, e.g., 2 minutes. That way, they might fit in between the other
presentations, thereby costing zero net schedule time.
3. I think StartupCamp presentations should somehow relate to making
money. BarCamps cover cool technology. DemoCamps cover nascent
projects. StartupCamps address the profit motive. Most of Tuesday's
presentations fit that requirement. Avery's provided an interesting
counter-example. I specifically looked forward to hearing Avery talk
about The Innovator's Dilemma, Nitix, and Versabanq. As engaging as
Avery's speaking is, and as interesting as the technology was, I would
have been much more interested in learning about how its benefits
served Versabanq's business strategy, for example.
4. Reduce the online channels of communication. There are now at least
three places to check for BarCamp stuff. Frankly, the proliferation is
a pain in the butt. There was even a duplication of Tuesday's
announcement within Facebook! I prefer the wiki because (in the
tradition of the open Internet) it's the most inclusive. It doesn't
require an ancillary membership (which I know excludes at least one
friend of mine from Facebook), it's easily updated by anyone, it's
readily indexed by all search engines, it's easily linked to from any
site, it's where non-local (i.e., reporting, visiting or moving)
BarCampers, would expect to find stuff, and it's spam-free. It ain't
broke. Why fix it?
Thanks for a great time. I'm looking forward to more.
Norm.
Jesse Rodgers
Thanks! Glad you had a good time and found it valuable.
As per your feedback: point #1 and #2 -- we will strive for that, no
promises :) #3 is hugely helpful feedback. Articulating the focus and
value of the different events is important, I think you nailed it. #4
'the facebook' is a beast that has a life of its own. The official
channel of the online communication for the BarCampWaterloo group is
the BarCamp wiki. That includes StartupCampWaterloo.
That is not to say decentralized communication is not welcome. Not
sure if flooding multiple channels is wise as I believe word of mouth
is our greatest asset but Facebook reaches a different group so we
will likely need to update that as well. Mr Fagan, how about a
Facebook app to update both?
Jesse
Avery Pennarun
> Avery's provided an interesting
> counter-example. I specifically looked forward to hearing Avery talk
> about The Innovator's Dilemma, Nitix, and Versabanq. As engaging as
> Avery's speaking is, and as interesting as the technology was, I would
> have been much more interested in learning about how its benefits
> served Versabanq's business strategy, for example.
Sorry about that. I would have liked to talk more about that stuff,
but I decided that the intended two-minute presentation time limit was
too short to say anything valuable on those topics, so I aimed for
something that I hoped would get some good questions.
The "business interpretation" of my demo was this: don't just start
web companies. Technology is all over the map, and the excess of
web-based companies right now is leaving a lot of other areas badly
underserviced. And most excuses for developing web-only software
instead of native software are invalid; I demonstrated a couple.
If people are interested, perhaps I could actually do one of the other
topics next time around. I just think that at least 10 minutes of
presentation time (plus questions) would be necessary in order to say
something coherent, and that would definitely have cut into other
people's timeslots.
> 4. Reduce the online channels of communication. There are now at least
> three places to check for BarCamp stuff.
Yes!! I don't use facebook, and I've never even visited the so-called
WatCamp page.
To deal with the annoying problem that the "right" wiki page changes
after each camp, I suggest this:
Have a main WatCamp page with the information about the *current* and
*upcoming* events. When an event passes, cut and paste it to a new
(archive) page.
This is instead of the current method of always creating a new page right away.
Have fun,
Avery
Michael Fagan
as to multiple channels, that is the screwed up fact of life online
these days. one solution might be to abandon using facebook events and
just do attendance based on the wiki page. either way, stuff is going
to suck. and I don't think creating a new huge bloated site is any
solution at all
I'll have a post-camp blog post up later today on my own site, btw.
the link to my site is in my signature, which for some reason gmail
puts at the end of emails rather than the end of my reply...
--
Michael
http://faganm.com/
Jesse Rodgers
> after each camp, I suggest this:
>
> Have a main WatCamp page with the information about the *current* and
> *upcoming* events. When an event passes, cut and paste it to a new
> (archive) page.
>
> This is instead of the current method of always creating a new page right away.
WatCamp page: http://www.barcamp.org/WatCamp
Jesse
Gary Will
supposed to accomplish. If it really is supposed to be a chance for
people to present a business opportunity that they're working on and
get meaningful feedback, you can't do it in three minutes. That works
fine for demos, but any credible business has components that can't be
overlooked: product, market need, target market, business model, go-to-
market-strategy. Any three minute business presentation will be too
superficial for serious feedback. That's true for business issues too,
as Avery pointed out.
And if people are going to present at a StartupCamp (as opposed to
BarCamp or DemoCamp), I think there needs to be more clarity around
what they should come in ready to talk about. This shouldn't be
"here's something cool, what do you think?" with no sign that there's
been any market research or thought put into a business model. If all
you want is an amusing night out, that can be fun to participate in
and entertaining to watch, but it has very little to do with growing a
startup business. Maybe we need a presentation about what a
StartupCamp presentation should include, and how it's different from
BarCamp.
Facebook is a non-issue. The main communication channel for the event
is the wiki and always has been. Facebook is another way to get the
word out and clearly links back to the wiki. Complaining about the
Facebook posting is like complaining that there were posters at the AC
when you don't go to the AC. At BarCampWaterloo, the channel most
cited for "how I heard about this event" was Facebook. The only
problem this time around was that Simon was the only admin and hadn't
posted the event on the group. I see that's been fixed now.
Ali was awesome, and if Albert had been able to make it, I think that
would have resulted in a bit more of a business focus, which would
have been helpful. As a networking opportunity, it worked very well.
Many of our best startups were in the room. The turnout was great. For
a first time, which is always a learning experience, I thought it went
very well.
Jesse Rodgers
http://barcamp.org/WaterlooCamp being the central listing page?
Anything with 'Wat' bugs me... sorry Gary ;) Your site is teh awsum
now though.
Jesse
Avery Pennarun
> Any three minute business presentation will be too
> superficial for serious feedback. That's true for business issues too,
> as Avery pointed out.
Actually, it occurred to me that part of this problem was death by
popularity: there were a lot of people who volunteered to speak, and
only three hours (minus break times) to do it in. Imagine if there
had only been four speakers: each segment could have been 30+ minutes.
Last year at the first BarCampWaterloo we used a system (suggested by
Jesse?) in which everyone who had a presentation wrote the title and
required time on an index card and posted it on a wall. Then everyone
present (not just presenters) added a mark to any index card they
thought they'd like to see. And we simply selected the index card
with the most votes for each time segment until all the time was
filled.
I haven't seen that method employed since. Now, that particular time
it wasn't actually necessary, for the simple reason that it was *six*
hours and only about 25 people total, so in the end *everyone* who
wanted to speak, had time to speak.
But it would be great to try that again at the next StartupCamp.
Assuming three 20-minute breaks in three hours, that would leave time
for four 30-minute presentations (15 minutes + questions?). Or if
people had quicker presentations (several of them were fine this time
with just 10-15 minute slots), we could work more of them in.
Have fun,
Avery
sbwoodside
ideas.
REQUIREMENTS:
* it has to be a technology that can be demoed
* you have some (possibly very limited) thoughts about business
directions
* you are thinking about turning it into a business
* OR you have a small business and are thinking about going big
* you are open to heckling and constructive criticism
NOT ALLOWED:
* presentations that are ads or "hiring" or "requesting help"
ORDER OF PRESENTATIONS:
* GOAL: some better ordering system, not necessarily order on the list
* NON-GOAL: trying to fit in everyone who signed up
For timing the goal should be to allow good stuff to go on for quite a
while (maybe 30 minutes? more?) but cut off the bad stuff ASAP.
TIMING (???):
* 3 minutes "taste test"
* audience go/no-go to continue
* 7 more minutes to:
* properly present your demo
* let us know your business background
* hear your thoughts about business directions
* 5 minutes of discussion
* audience go/no-go to continue
* 15-20 more minutes of discussion or until it naturally stops
To my mind if we can have 3 really good discussions it's better than
trying to force fit 6 into the same time space.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Yeah I agree they should be totally minimal.
FACEBOOK vs WIKI vs GOOGLE GROUPS vs ETC
Yeah, the facebook dupe was mainly my fault 'cause I didn't give Jesse
admin on the group until too late.
Regarding posting the event on Facebook - what Gary said. AND, we need
to be open to accepting that some people literally can't edit a wiki
but should still be allowed to come & participate fully.
I don't like google groups! I don't want Google to know everything
about me so I don't log in when I use google. I'd RATHER split the
information gathering between different companies e.g. google vs
facebook, at least then one company doesn't know everything. So, maybe
if PBWiki added forums we could use that. Otherwise can we switch to
the forums on Facebook?
--simon
sbwoodside
with BarCampWaterloo? I don't understand why we need a name change.
Jesse Rodgers
thoughts (quick before Simon logs into gmail again and they find him)?
Jesse
Avery Pennarun
> ORDER OF PRESENTATIONS:
> * GOAL: some better ordering system, not necessarily order on the list
> * NON-GOAL: trying to fit in everyone who signed up
Agreed, although just to emphasize, I think we should preserve the
idea of doing it ad-hoc at the site instead of in advance. This is
what makes the various camps what they are.
> For timing the goal should be to allow good stuff to go on for quite a
> while (maybe 30 minutes? more?) but cut off the bad stuff ASAP.
This is hard to do without hurting people's feelings one way or the
other. Your suggestion of a "taste test" *sounds* good, but audiences
are notorioiusly sympathetic to bad speakers. If you ask whether
someone should continue after 3 minutes, saying no is morally
equivalent to booing them off the stage... so nobody will. Even if
they wish they had :)
Perhaps we could start with a series of 30-second "here's what I would
talk about if I were talking" presentations, then choose *after* that
which ones we want to see? Then it's a matter of "no offense, but
this one sounded really interesting" instead of "no offense, but you
sounded really dull."
> I don't like google groups! I don't want Google to know everything
> about me so I don't log in when I use google. I'd RATHER split the
> information gathering between different companies e.g. google vs
> facebook, at least then one company doesn't know everything. So, maybe
> if PBWiki added forums we could use that. Otherwise can we switch to
> the forums on Facebook?
Let's face it, if you're on a public forum with archives, then google
knows all about you anyhow. But you don't have to log into google to
use google groups. You can subscribe to it by email like any other
mailing list (that's how I do it).
Have fun,
Avery
Simon Clark
it with a good feeling that people like my idea, but very little that
made a meaningful change in my plans. For it to be useful, the demo
almost needs to be a two stage event:
1) present idea, answer questions, etc. Essentially "sell" the idea
to the audience.
2) Outline challenges, roadblocks to the business, get advice for
moving forward
In view of that, I would suggest the following format...
- up to maybe 10 demos, limited to 5 minutes each.
- At the end of the demos, we vote for the three ideas that the
audience wants to devote more time to (ie: have the most potential
for help) - Vote by laser pointer maybe?
- the Demos with the most votes break out into subgroups to poke at
the idea in more depth, and actually try to develop a plan to move
the business forward.
Jesse Rodgers
> the idea in more depth, and actually try to develop a plan to move
> the business forward.
This is a very cool idea... could be hugely helpful.
Jesse
Norman Young
I like the idea of pitching, as a test to win favour. That's reality, after all.
I'm not so sure about the subgroups, not that the mode focused
attention wouldn't be helpful, but that the larger group, and the
evening, might lose inertia. For example, subgroups force me to
choose, as an attendee. It also excludes presenters from commenting on
other presenters, which is a drag for both.
A large part of Tuesday evening's value was the cross-pollenation
heckling. That happens best in a large, single group, where everyone's
welcome to chime.
Also, the generous breaks provide a good opportunity for focused,
small-group discussions.
(This is a great discussion.)
Simon Clark
> attention wouldn't be helpful, but that the larger group, and the
> evening, might lose inertia. For example, subgroups force me to
> choose, as an attendee. It also excludes presenters from commenting on
> other presenters, which is a drag for both.
Alright, so how about this...
Once the mini-pitches are over, the names of all the demos go up on a
board, along with the option of "call it a night". We give the demo
with the most number of votes as much time as it takes, then take
their name down, vote again, until "call it a night" wins.
For some reason, I like the idea of everyone voting with a laser
pointer, but then I'm one of the few people who still think they're
way cool. Especially since I can make my daughter chase one around
the living room to tire her out.
Simon
Norman Young
>
> Alright, so how about this...
>
> Once the mini-pitches are over, the names of all the demos go up on a
> board, along with the option of "call it a night". We give the demo
> with the most number of votes as much time as it takes, then take
> their name down, vote again, until "call it a night" wins.
>
> Simon
>
Yes. By way of clarification or suggestion, I think we should do the
voting at the first break, using checkmarks on the whiteboard. Where
the evening has M slots and N pitchers, ask people to distribute their
M votes over the N+1 choices (including "call it a night"). Then,
after the break, proceed with M presentations in order of most to
least requested.
A public-show-of-hands type of vote is a little sensationalist, and
potentially embarrassing for pitchers. We don't want to discourage
future participation.
As a further suggestion, I'd like to exclude Powerpoint from the
mini-pitches. Just stand up and talk. I personally think its more
effective. It's a better demonstration of speaking skills, and it
avoids the significant time and distraction of swapping laptops.
Hm. Here's a question. Should invited speakers have to pitch to earn
their spot on the roster? Free market economy ;). Just a thought.
Norm.
Jesse Rodgers
> voting at the first break, using checkmarks on the whiteboard. Where
> the evening has M slots and N pitchers, ask people to distribute their
> M votes over the N+1 choices (including "call it a night"). Then,
> after the break, proceed with M presentations in order of most to
> least requested.
An unspoken, and only once previously used rule (at the first
BarCampWaterloo) was pretty much this. I think Avery mentioned it...
We just haven't needed it on the Saturday events. If we have 60+
people show up on a Saturday though, we would.
I am in favour of sticking with the whiteboard checklist voting at the
first break which would occur after the intro and first invited talk.
The invited talks are good because they get the event started, break
the ice, get people interested, set the tone, etc. I think Ali has set
the bar for that -- talks like Ali's are exactly what we need to start
a good event.
> Hm. Here's a question. Should invited speakers have to pitch to earn
> their spot on the roster? Free market economy ;). Just a thought.
I think so... besides the first speaker that is.
Jesse
Avery Pennarun
> Yes. By way of clarification or suggestion, I think we should do the
> voting at the first break, using checkmarks on the whiteboard. Where
> the evening has M slots and N pitchers, ask people to distribute their
> M votes over the N+1 choices (including "call it a night"). Then,
> after the break, proceed with M presentations in order of most to
> least requested.
We're now deep into fine-tuning the algorithm, but okay...
I don't think there's much benefit to limiting people to M votes in
that case. I like the "approval voting" method we used before in
which everyone adds a tick to the ones they want to see, and not to
the ones they don't. Ties don't matter; there's no real reason to
priority-order the winners anyway.
Also, the "call it a night" option isn't really required; effectively,
each person can define their own "call it a night" point and call it a
night at that point.
Note that Jesse's interpretation is to skip the "pitching" section and
just have an invited speaker for the first segment, then have everyone
vote based purely on the whiteboard talk titles and names. I think
that would actually work fine (perhaps less perfect ranking results,
but also less redundancy). Either approach sounds fine to me.
> A public-show-of-hands type of vote is a little sensationalist, and
> potentially embarrassing for pitchers. We don't want to discourage
> future participation.
Agreed.
> As a further suggestion, I'd like to exclude Powerpoint from the
> mini-pitches. Just stand up and talk. I personally think its more
> effective. It's a better demonstration of speaking skills, and it
> avoids the significant time and distraction of swapping laptops.
More generally: no laptops for the initial pitch, end of story. That
would make it very fast, which is the point.
> Hm. Here's a question. Should invited speakers have to pitch to earn
> their spot on the roster? Free market economy ;). Just a thought.
I'd be hesitant to try this. While it's unlikely that anyone worth
inviting would ever *not* be selected, you'd earn a terrible
reputation from explicitly inviting someone (presumably a "big name")
and then not letting them talk. Ouch. I wouldn't want that on my
head.
Have fun,
Avery
Norman Young
> Note that Jesse's interpretation is to skip the "pitching" section and
> just have an invited speaker for the first segment, then have everyone
> vote based purely on the whiteboard talk titles and names. I think
> that would actually work fine (perhaps less perfect ranking results,
> but also less redundancy). Either approach sounds fine to me.
I agree with all of Jesse's and Avery's clarifications.
Pre-pitches would only matter (or be worth the overhead) if we're
grossly over-subscribed, e.g., we have twice as many titles as slots.
Ordering by popularity might somewhat help those who want to leave
early, (I saw some traffic towards the door on Tuesday), but it's
minor.
Ali's presentation provided a refreshingly realistic glimpse into
venture funding. Bravo!
Norm.