Suggested topics?
J-P Stacey
Three that spring to mind for me:
1. Social media and online campaigning
2. Niche Python e.g. Symbian/GAE/giant earth-moving robots
3. Cloud computing - who uses it, who doesn't, and why (and why not)
What do other people think? Do you have a top three? Or are you just
turning up to see what happens?
On the wiki right now we've also got:
* Oxford University's iTunes project
* Digital Freedom in Education and Youth
* The Open Accessibility community
* ORG
* OpenMoko
* Solr, Tika, search and droids
* Proce55ing
* Arduino hardware hacking
* The web and ambient information
* Mashups and data sources
Cheers,
J-P
Ross Gardler
> What topics do people want to hear (and talk) about at BarCamp Oxford?
> Three that spring to mind for me:
>
> 1. Social media and online campaigning
> 2. Niche Python e.g. Symbian/GAE/giant earth-moving robots
> 3. Cloud computing - who uses it, who doesn't, and why (and why not)
>
> What do other people think? Do you have a top three? Or are you just
> turning up to see what happens?
1. Understanding open development
2. Why is a non-profit foundation important to defend standards
3. How do we teach open development
(and yes, I'm happy to do an impromptu presentation on any of these topics)
>
> On the wiki right now we've also got:
>
> * Oxford University's iTunes project
> * Digital Freedom in Education and Youth
> * The Open Accessibility community
> * ORG
> * OpenMoko
> * Solr, Tika, search and droids
> * Proce55ing
> * Arduino hardware hacking
> * The web and ambient information
> * Mashups and data sources
>
> Cheers,
> J-P
>
> >
>
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - awareness and understanding of open source software
development and use in education
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
Marcus Povey
1) Open democracy and tools to make it happen
2) Writing scalable web apps in PHP
I don't mind doing a talk/workshop :)
Marcus
On Mar 6, 10:19 pm, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote:
> 2009/3/6 J-P Stacey <jp.sta...@gmail.com>:
Andrew Godwin
idea of 'niche python' is right down my alley, although I do also like
the many myriad applications of GIS tech, particularly crossing over
the Real World™ with the Internet - kind-of AR, if you will.
I am even considering implementing real-life Mornington Crescent,
although I'm not sure I'll have that done in time for BarCamp...
And, as a webby person in general, anything to make my life easier is
good, and I can talk/listen all day about/to web caches, on-demand map
rendering, and various other things.
The occasional humourous talk doesn't go amiss, either. The last
Barcamp Brighton I went to had a silly Q&A session that was good fun.
Andrew
Steve Lee
> although I'm not sure I'll have that done in time for BarCamp...
I'd be fascinated to see how you encode the rules. Can you do it in
less than 1 TB?
--
Steve Lee
Open Source Assistive Technology Software and Accessibility
fullmeasure.co.uk
Andrew Godwin
fixed subset of them, or else write a program to go through the various
transcripts and analyse them in an attempt to extract rules!
Basically, it'll consist of a set of chosen rules, to stop everyone
hopping on the tube and going to MC straight away. My plan also included
inventing a fictional Oxford transport network to test it on in the
meantime, mind you.
If people actually want to see it and/or try it on Saturday/Sunday, I
can by all means have a crack at it!
Andrew
Drew McLellan
and simple message queues.
But then that might be getting a bit geeky.
drew.
Ross Gardler
> I've got something buzzing around my head about the asynchronous web
> and simple message queues.
> But then that might be getting a bit geeky.
one thing happening at once, the Mornington Crescent session will
certainly be running for three days before and six years after. I'd be
glad to dive out of that sessions to get a geek fix ;-)
Ross
>
> drew.
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2009, at 20:37, Marcus Povey wrote:
>
>>
>> All of these sound good, to which I'd add:
>>
>> 1) Open democracy and tools to make it happen
>> 2) Writing scalable web apps in PHP
>>
>> I don't mind doing a talk/workshop :)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> On Mar 6, 10:19 pm, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 2009/3/6 J-P Stacey <jp.sta...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What topics do people want to hear (and talk) about at BarCamp
>>>> Oxford?
>>>> Three that spring to mind for me:
>>>
>>>> 1. Social media and online campaigning
>>>> 2. Niche Python e.g. Symbian/GAE/giant earth-moving robots
>>>> 3. Cloud computing - who uses it, who doesn't, and why (and why
>>>> not)
>>>
>>>> What do other people think? Do you have a top three? Or are you just
>>>> turning up to see what happens?
>>>
>
>
> >
>
Matthew Westcott
> I've got something buzzing around my head about the asynchronous web
> and simple message queues.
> But then that might be getting a bit geeky.
Sounds good - message queues seem to be a hot topic just lately, in a
"lots of smart people are excitedly yammering about this and I have no
idea why" sort of way. An introduction to the subject through the
medium of 1980s children's TV characters could be just what I need.
(note: if you weren't *actually* planning an 80s-children's-TV theme
this time, don't feel you have to put one in for my sake :-) )
iPhone development is another thing at the top of my wishlist...
something that I really want to get into, but desperately need some
guidance from someone who's already passed the "so why exactly does
this Hello World app consist of 17 different files?" barrier. And
isn't an Apple podcast.
And geeky is good, although a lot of my favourite talks from past
BarCamps have been the unexpected non-computerish ones - folk music,
stick figure animation, "flow" (in the productivity sense) and
zeppelins are ones that particularly stick out for me. So if anyone's
got a specialist subject that they've been hiding under a bushel, do
speak up, even if it doesn't seem like typical geek material...
- Matt
Drew McLellan
> And geeky is good, although a lot of my favourite talks from past
> BarCamps have been the unexpected non-computerish ones - folk music,
> stick figure animation, "flow" (in the productivity sense) and
> zeppelins are ones that particularly stick out for me. So if anyone's
> got a specialist subject that they've been hiding under a bushel, do
> speak up, even if it doesn't seem like typical geek material...
That's a good point. I've just had an email from a web designer friend
asking if he should sign up or if it'll be too web-dev focussed. Not
sure how to answer.
It's important to keep a balance in order to get a mix of people with
different ideas, backgrounds and experience, I think.
Thoughts?
drew.
James Weiner
On 10 Mar 2009, at 11:03, Drew McLellan wrote:
> That's a good point. I've just had an email from a web designer friend
> asking if he should sign up or if it'll be too web-dev focussed. Not
> sure how to answer.
>
> It's important to keep a balance in order to get a mix of people with
> different ideas, backgrounds and experience, I think.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> drew.
My brother and I are hoping to come talk a bit about our work
redesigning on the Open Font Library and the tricksy state of fonts on
the web in general at the moment. This may be more up designers'
streets, whilst still retaining a thick patina of geek.
http://openfontlibrary.fontly.org/ (in development!)
James
--
James Weiner
ja...@unicorncreative.com | +44 7713 005 056
Unicorn Creative | http://unicorncreative.com
Please note my new address!
Marcus Povey
I don't mind putting something together for this as it fits quite well
with a couple of projects I'm working on.
Marcus
On Mar 10, 10:59 am, Matthew Westcott <matthew.westc...@torchbox.com>
wrote:
Jonathan Leighton
technology. It would probably cover:
* What tools are out there & how they are used
* Historical events (when things started, server seizures, etc)
* Technology "in the field" - literally. (At climate camp there was a
media centre with a satellite internet connection, power by solar panels
and wind turbines...)
* Activist security
Sound good? How long are talks supposed to be?
Jon
Matthew Westcott
>
> My brother and I are hoping to come talk a bit about our work
> redesigning on the Open Font Library and the tricksy state of fonts on
> the web in general at the moment. This may be more up designers'
> streets, whilst still retaining a thick patina of geek.
Ah, now you're talking! Typography seems to be the classic example of
a topic which is different enough to be outside most geeks' areas of
expertise, but interesting enough that they'll almost universally leap
at the chance to learn more about it. (Just look at how quickly the
typography books were snapped up at the last Geek Night...)
(I have my suspicions that cheese making may be another one. Any
takers? :-) )
- Matt
Andrew Godwin
> (I have my suspicions that cheese making may be another one. Any
> takers? :-) )
>
(Yes.)
Andrew
J-P Stacey
This is something we'll need to work out, but probably on the day when
we're all together and we're certain of numbers.
We've got at least three cordoned-off rooms (projectors willing) and
around eight hours (?) of venue. So talks could be as much as half an
hour - 50x0.5h is approximately 3x8h. That doesn't account for lunch
or time for setup and settle-down, but there's also more breakout
space for more informal chats. Twenty minutes?
Cheers,
J-P
Prem Ghinde
> Ah, now you're talking! Typography seems to be the classic example of
> a topic which is different enough to be outside most geeks' areas of
> expertise
Semantics and suchlike.
And to add a slightly boring slant to proceedings, I'd be happy to
jump in with topics related to Management. Whether that be of people
or projects.
Feel free to flame. =)
Ross Gardler
We need some fun as well as some geek. Have your friend sign up and do
a presentation on their favourite non-tech topics.
I'm afraid I'm too long in the tech world to talk (interestingly)
about anything else (other than my son) these days :-(
Ross
Ross Gardler
>
> On 10 Mar 2009, at 11:11, James Weiner wrote:
>>
>> My brother and I are hoping to come talk a bit about our work
>> redesigning on the Open Font Library and the tricksy state of fonts on
>> the web in general at the moment. This may be more up designers'
>> streets, whilst still retaining a thick patina of geek.
That would be cool, I know I would want to hear about that (we have a
problem in house right now).
Ross
Ross Gardler
Matthew Westcott
> We've got at least three cordoned-off rooms (projectors willing) and
> around eight hours (?) of venue. So talks could be as much as half an
> hour - 50x0.5h is approximately 3x8h. That doesn't account for lunch
> or time for setup and settle-down, but there's also more breakout
> space for more informal chats. Twenty minutes?
Twenty minutes is a bit on the low side compared to the London ones
I've been to - which were 30 or 45 mins with 5-10 min gaps, IIRC - but
then we're working within different parameters here after all (they
were 2-day events in venues which were probably more spread out than
this one). I wouldn't really want to go any lower than that, because
any non-trivial subject always takes longer to cover than you think it
will [1] - and for people who don't want to talk for the full
duration, it's easier to split a session between multiple speakers (or
at the extreme, have a lightning talks session) than it is to combine
them.
Ross Gardler
I agree, sessions should be 45 minutes with a some slots being split
into "lightning talk" slots, i.e. two sessions at 20 mins.
Ross
J-P Stacey
> into "lightning talk" slots, i.e. two sessions at 20 mins.
There's the worry then that we won't fit everyone in: one room, eight
hours gives us just under eleven 45-minute slots. Three such rooms
gives us fewer slots than we already have attendees. We can probably
work it out on the day, though, as I certainly couldn't imagine myself
filling 45 minutes so would be happy to have a lightning-talk slot.
Cheers,
J-P
Drew McLellan
45 minutes sounds waaay too long for me. A proper speaking gig at a
big web conference is 45 minutes.
The last barcamp I went two was barcamp london (at Yahoo) - the slots
were 20 minutes iirc. If everyone is expected to participate (as the
format dictates) 45 mins is too long for those less confident at
running a session.
So I'd flip it on its head - make the slot 20 minutes, and really in-
depth topics could take two consecutive slots.
Drew.
Ross Gardler
Not everyone will present. In my experience (which admitedly is only 3
barcamp type events) only about 60% of people present. If we end up
with more people than slots I have a technique for deciding who gets
the slots which is very quick and democratic. Leave it to me ;-)
I can expand on it here if you care, I'm not trying to be secretive,
just trying to keep on top of things by skipping details.
Ross
Ross Gardler
>
> On 10 Mar 2009, at 19:26, J-P Stacey wrote:
>
>>> I agree, sessions should be 45 minutes with a some slots being split
>>> into "lightning talk" slots, i.e. two sessions at 20 mins.
>>
>> There's the worry then that we won't fit everyone in: one room, eight
>> hours gives us just under eleven 45-minute slots. Three such rooms
>> gives us fewer slots than we already have attendees. We can probably
>> work it out on the day, though, as I certainly couldn't imagine myself
>> filling 45 minutes so would be happy to have a lightning-talk slot.
>
> 45 minutes sounds waaay too long for me. A proper speaking gig at a
> big web conference is 45 minutes.
It's 45 minute slots not, 45 minutes of presenting, but 20-30 mins of
presenting and 20-25 mins discussion. Popular sessions will result in
the discussion moving off into another area (there are plenty of areas
in the University club).
> The last barcamp I went two was barcamp london (at Yahoo) - the slots
> were 20 minutes iirc. If everyone is expected to participate (as the
> format dictates) 45 mins is too long for those less confident at
> running a session.
Which is why we have some lightning slots as well as the 45 minute
slots. 20 minutes is simply not enough to allow time for discussion
and this, for me, is the point. Get to talk to people outside your
normal brainstorming group.
> So I'd flip it on its head - make the slot 20 minutes, and really in-
> depth topics could take two consecutive slots.
That's another way of looking at it. Are we trying to paint the bikeshed here?
kal
web pages using a combination of rdfQuery and OpenCalais. I'd also be
happy to do a quick introduction to ISO Topic Maps for all those
interested in the ISO version of RDF :-)
Cheers
Kal
On Mar 6, 9:29 pm, J-P Stacey <jp.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What topics do people want to hear (and talk) about at BarCamp Oxford?
> Three that spring to mind for me:
>
> 1. Social media and online campaigning
> 2. Niche Python e.g. Symbian/GAE/giant earth-moving robots
> 3. Cloud computing - who uses it, who doesn't, and why (and why not)
>
> What do other people think? Do you have a top three? Or are you just
> turning up to see what happens?
>
RobertBurrellDonkin
> On 10 Mar 2009, at 19:26, J-P Stacey wrote:
>
> >> I agree, sessions should be 45 minutes with a some slots being split
> >> into "lightning talk" slots, i.e. two sessions at 20 mins.
>
> > There's the worry then that we won't fit everyone in: one room, eight
> > hours gives us just under eleven 45-minute slots. Three such rooms
> > gives us fewer slots than we already have attendees. We can probably
> > work it out on the day, though, as I certainly couldn't imagine myself
> > filling 45 minutes so would be happy to have a lightning-talk slot.
>
> 45 minutes sounds waaay too long for me. A proper speaking gig at a
> big web conference is 45 minutes.
minute talks then that's a big investment. 20 minutes represents the
sort of limited investment which suits a flexible format like
BarCamp.
but at BarCamp ApacheConEU, those sessions which got the audience
talking found the 30 minute slot too short - and had to cut short just
when it was starting to get interesting. i think it's hard to gauge
the level of interest a particular audience will have in a particular
subject so what might work is having 45 minute slots with primary and
secondary talks prep'd for around 20 minutes excluding discussion
time. depending on the audience reaction the primary might run
through, cut short or just break off into a small group discussion.
this would allow people who just have short talks or who are less
confident to sign up as secondaries
- robert
Ross Gardler
>
> On Mar 10, 8:30 pm, Drew McLellan <d...@allinthehead.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2009, at 19:26, J-P Stacey wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree, sessions should be 45 minutes with a some slots being split
>> >> into "lightning talk" slots, i.e. two sessions at 20 mins.
>>
>> > There's the worry then that we won't fit everyone in: one room, eight
>> > hours gives us just under eleven 45-minute slots. Three such rooms
>> > gives us fewer slots than we already have attendees. We can probably
>> > work it out on the day, though, as I certainly couldn't imagine myself
>> > filling 45 minutes so would be happy to have a lightning-talk slot.
>>
>> 45 minutes sounds waaay too long for me. A proper speaking gig at a
>> big web conference is 45 minutes.
>
> in terms of preparing a talk, IMHO it is. if we ask people to prep 45
> minute talks then that's a big investment. 20 minutes represents the
> sort of limited investment which suits a flexible format like
> BarCamp.
A barcamp should be about discussion not presentation in my opinion. a
45 minute slot should only have 20 mins of presentation, as I've said
elsewhere in this thread.
> but at BarCamp ApacheConEU, those sessions which got the audience
> talking found the 30 minute slot too short - and had to cut short just
> when it was starting to get interesting.
The environemnt at the hotel in EU was not good for a barcamp, we took
the decision not to use the second room as it was on a different
floor. People also seemed reluctant to take their discussions our into
the foyer where we had sofas for people.
The lesson to learn (apart from not letting a conference producer set
up BarCamp space) is to lead by example with the breakours. I led the
first "proper" talk at EU in order to illustrate that it was about
discussion not about presentation, this worked within the slot we had,
but I should have immediately taken the 5 or so engaged people I had
out into the hall.
At Oxford the venue is much better suited to a BarCamp, we have loads
of breakout spaces and all rooms are on the same floor.
> i think it's hard to gauge
> the level of interest a particular audience will have in a particular
> subject so what might work is having 45 minute slots with primary and
> secondary talks prep'd for around 20 minutes excluding discussion
> time. depending on the audience reaction the primary might run
> through, cut short or just break off into a small group discussion.
A BarCamp is not rigid in any way. The schedule is always fluid. There
was one event where the talk before mine had loads of discussion
going, so I stood up and suggested those interested in my slot move to
the back of the room with me and the rest carry on discussing. It's
all about being flexible.
I fear we are thinking too much in terms of a conference where a slot
is rigid. A BarCamp is not rigid.
We do need an idea of a schedule, but 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 45
minutes - it really is not that relevant.
So - decision made (pending any veto of course):
Thirty minute slots with a strong emphasis on going out to the
breakout speaces if you want to run loner.
Ross
Ross
J-P Stacey
> breakout speaces if you want to run loner.
That's probably OK, although if everyone gets a swing at a talk then
that's 50x0.5/3 = eight hours spread over three rooms. How long do we
have the University Club for, including lunch etc? Do we plan to fit
everyone in?
I think we should definitely try to stay fluid, but we'd also want
people moving between rooms to have some confidence on the
scribbled-down copy of the Grid that they made, that they wouldn't end
up missing a talk because of over- or under-running. Again, would
people be happy tuning in to Twitter feeds to keep updated? Would
people reliably tweet if they're in a talk that's overrunning?
Cheers,
J-P
Matthew Westcott
>> Thirty minute slots with a strong emphasis on going out to the
>> breakout speaces if you want to run loner.
>
> That's probably OK, although if everyone gets a swing at a talk then
> that's 50x0.5/3 = eight hours spread over three rooms. How long do we
> have the University Club for, including lunch etc? Do we plan to fit
> everyone in?
As Ross mentioned a while back, it's pretty much a given that not
everyone on the list will present - but IMHO, a Barcamp where not
everyone who's willing to present gets a chance to do so, would be a
very poor show indeed. That suggests to me that we should pick a
session length which allows us to *theoretically* cram in one slot for
each visitor if we were to go at it full pelt with no gaps and the
shortest lunch humanly possible - and then once we've been let loose
with the post-it notes and have an idea of how full or empty the
timetable is, we can pad out the timetable with breaks and/or give
people second slots accordingly. By the sound of things, half-hour
slots should achieve that.
> I think we should definitely try to stay fluid, but we'd also want
> people moving between rooms to have some confidence on the
> scribbled-down copy of the Grid that they made, that they wouldn't end
> up missing a talk because of over- or under-running. Again, would
> people be happy tuning in to Twitter feeds to keep updated? Would
> people reliably tweet if they're in a talk that's overrunning?
I don't really get why this would need Twitter-level coordination, as
long as we make a point of not allowing overrunning talks to impact on
the schedule of later ones (which means spectators not being afraid to
sneak out of a talk to catch the next one starting, and speakers not
being afraid to kick the last session out of the room when their turn
comes).
- Matt
Andrew Godwin
> I don't really get why this would need Twitter-level coordination, as
> long as we make a point of not allowing overrunning talks to impact on
> the schedule of later ones (which means spectators not being afraid to
> sneak out of a talk to catch the next one starting, and speakers not
> being afraid to kick the last session out of the room when their turn
> comes).
>
I agree - it's good form to make sure everything's on time. At BCL6 this
weekend each room had a few "5 minutes left" and "time's up" signs lying
on the table, for people to use to inform the speaker passively.
Crowdsourcing session chairs, if you will.
Andrew
Ross Gardler
>
>> Thirty minute slots with a strong emphasis on going out to the
>> breakout speaces if you want to run loner.
>
> That's probably OK, although if everyone gets a swing at a talk then
> that's 50x0.5/3 = eight hours spread over three rooms. How long do we
> have the University Club for, including lunch etc? Do we plan to fit
> everyone in?
We don't plan anything now we see how it goes. I know this sounds
really scary and not at all what most people are used to but the idea
is we think on our feet. This is how a bar camp is run.
If we have 60 talks then we cut sessions to 20 mins in order to fit
them in, or we ask people with similar talks to share a 30 minute slot
or we say "hey, it's a nice day, lets take some of the stuff outside".
It really doesn't need to be decided now, on the day *I* will be
making such decisions and *I* will make it work one way or another -
have confidence in the BarCamp process.
> I think we should definitely try to stay fluid, but we'd also want
> people moving between rooms to have some confidence on the
> scribbled-down copy of the Grid that they made, that they wouldn't end
> up missing a talk because of over- or under-running.
Talks are not allowed to overrun. If they are overrunning then they
are kicked out of the room and those interested enough move with the
speaker into the atribum area to continue the discussion. This means
that talks start as per the schedule, it does not mean they finish as
per the schedule though. This process means that those in a room where
a discussion is taking place that they are not interested in need not
sit through 20 mins of uninteresting (to them) discussion, whilst
those who are interested can have 40 minutes extra instead of 20.
Again, this is how a BarCamp is run and it is my job to make it work
on the day. I'll need help but please, trust in the proven barcamp
system. I know it is scary the first time around, but it really does
work.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
J-P Stacey
>> long as we make a point of not allowing overrunning talks to impact on
>> the schedule of later ones
>
Yes, me too. I was just suggesting something like Twitter as an
alternative if we wanted a really malleable timetable. I didn't mean
to summon the fail whale.
> weekend each room had a few "5 minutes left" and "time's up" signs lying
> on the table, for people to use to inform the speaker passively.
> Crowdsourcing session chairs, if you will.
That's a brilliant idea. Unfortunately Sally's laminator is at home,
but I can ask around. At the very least, we can print them out on your
normal paper and stick 'em onto card.
J-P
Ross Gardler
>> weekend each room had a few "5 minutes left" and "time's up" signs lying
>> on the table, for people to use to inform the speaker passively.
>> Crowdsourcing session chairs, if you will.
>
> That's a brilliant idea. Unfortunately Sally's laminator is at home,
> but I can ask around. At the very least, we can print them out on your
> normal paper and stick 'em onto card.
That's be really uiseful - thanks.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
Matthew Westcott
> 2009/3/31 J-P Stacey <jp.s...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> That's probably OK, although if everyone gets a swing at a talk then
>> that's 50x0.5/3 = eight hours spread over three rooms. How long do we
>> have the University Club for, including lunch etc? Do we plan to fit
>> everyone in?
>
> We don't plan anything now we see how it goes. I know this sounds
> really scary and not at all what most people are used to but the idea
> is we think on our feet. This is how a bar camp is run.
While I do appreciate the BarCamp philosophy (and have seen it working
successfully plenty of times...) I'd have to disagree on the specific
point of deciding a session length: knowing it in advance is a
courtesy to speakers to allow them to plan their talks better. You
might say that advance planning isn't in the spirit of a BarCamp, but
not everyone has the inclination or ability for (or subject-matter-
that-lends-itself-to) spontaneous or open-ended talks - and by leaving
session length an unknown quantity, you're actually constraining
sessions to conform to a particular structure that can cope with
that... er... lack of structure.
- Matt
J-P Stacey
> successfully plenty of times...) I'd have to disagree on the specific
> point of deciding a session length: knowing it in advance is a
> courtesy to speakers to allow them to plan their talks better.
Could we say: session length will be sorted out on the day, depending
on attendees, time available, resources available etc, but if you plan
for twenty minutes then you will have quite adequately fulfilled the
requirements of BarCamp, regardless of the eventual session length?
That way people who are new to the unstructure don't feel unsettled by
it.
> by leaving
> session length an unknown quantity, you're actually constraining
> sessions to conform to a particular structure that can cope with
> that... er... lack of structure.
More to the point, if you gaze long enough into a formal timetable,
does the formal timetable gaze back into you? And if so, how do I turn
that option off in Google Calendar?
Cheers,
J-P
Ross Gardler
>
> On 31 Mar 2009, at 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/31 J-P Stacey <jp.s...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> That's probably OK, although if everyone gets a swing at a talk then
>>> that's 50x0.5/3 = eight hours spread over three rooms. How long do we
>>> have the University Club for, including lunch etc? Do we plan to fit
>>> everyone in?
>>
>> We don't plan anything now we see how it goes. I know this sounds
>> really scary and not at all what most people are used to but the idea
>> is we think on our feet. This is how a bar camp is run.
>
> While I do appreciate the BarCamp philosophy (and have seen it working
> successfully plenty of times...) I'd have to disagree on the specific
> point of deciding a session length: knowing it in advance is a
> courtesy to speakers to allow them to plan their talks better.
It doesn't matter how long the sessions are the presentations should
not be more than 20 minutes. Any more than that just gets boring and
takes people beyond their attention spans. This means the minimum slot
time is 20 mins and the talk time grows to accommodate the number of
people wishing to present.
Ross Gardler
>
>> While I do appreciate the BarCamp philosophy (and have seen it working
>> successfully plenty of times...) I'd have to disagree on the specific
>> point of deciding a session length: knowing it in advance is a
>> courtesy to speakers to allow them to plan their talks better.
>
> Could we say: session length will be sorted out on the day, depending
> on attendees, time available, resources available etc, but if you plan
> for twenty minutes then you will have quite adequately fulfilled the
> requirements of BarCamp, regardless of the eventual session length?
> That way people who are new to the unstructure don't feel unsettled by
> it.
+1, sorry I didn't clearly explain this earlier today, I was making
false assumptions - i.e. that prepared presentations would not be over
20 mins.
>> by leaving
>> session length an unknown quantity, you're actually constraining
>> sessions to conform to a particular structure that can cope with
>> that... er... lack of structure.
>
> More to the point, if you gaze long enough into a formal timetable,
> does the formal timetable gaze back into you? And if so, how do I turn
> that option off in Google Calendar?
Having just run a BarCamp, at a formal style conference, in a 5 star
hotel, in Amsterdam. I can assure you that schedules do indeed gaze
back at you, along with many other inanimate objects that really
should not be gazing, or indeed, talking ;-)
Yes I exaggerate, but I really did feel like we were in an early
Disney movie at times - think spell books (the schedule) dancing mops
and buckets (the bemused attendees), an opening talk on "what to
expect in a coffee shop" and a 5 minute wake up session of "hokey
cokey" in the afternoon.
The event went well, but the sessions and environment was constrained
- we need more flexibility and interactivity in Oxford. We have the
ideal venue for it, so lets not get caught up in session scheduling
and focus on fun and engagement.