Inaugural meeting structure/form/content ideas

[sbohlen]

So now that we've selected an initial topic for the first meeting
(that old lightning-rod standby, Object-Relational Mapping), let's see
if we can come to agreement on structure/content/delivery a little so
that there's at least some pre-agreement on how the meeting wants to
be organized.

I have a few ideas I'll toss out, nothing concrete, just to get the
ball rolling....

The premis behind all these ideas: we are certain that we have at
least one confirmed attendee with significant experience in each of
the following data-access-technologies:

+ NHibernate (I can do this one unless someone else wants it)
+ LINQ2SQL
+ SubSonic
+ ADO.NET Entity Framework (I have plenty of book experience with this
one, but can't say I've actually used it)
+ ADO.NET Datasets/DataAdapters (anyone should be able to cover this
one!)
+ I'm sure I haven't listed them all here...

Idea # 1:
An open discussion of the principles behind why one would choose one
ORM solution over another (or even use ORM at all). The value of
abstractions, the quest for persistence-ignorance, the desire to work
with OO constructs in our applications, the quest for decoupling our
application from its database to improve agility. This isn't about
any TOOL being compared/contrasted, its about understanding the values
that lead one to look for a tool in this category in the first place
(lays the groundwork for more discussion later and hopefully allows
commonality of understanding of the problem domain).

Idea # 1a:
Comparison and contrast of how the leading data-access technologies
approach these various values; different attendees with experience in
different data-access technologies can offer their opinion on how
their tool-of-choice reflects these values (or doesn't reflect them,
if they feel the value is...value-less)

Idea #2:
Select several common data-access scenarios and discuss how the
different data-access-technologies support/address them. Could be as
simple as C, R, U, D = 4 diff scenarios right there or could be as
complex as "my schema was just changed by that idiot of a DBA, now
what do I have to do to my application to react?" for each of the data-
access-technologies (take attendees thru an understanding of the ways
these different tools support the dev team reacting to different real-
world scenarios and compare and contrast how they allow the developer
to react)

Idea # 3:
I have no idea #3.

I'm imagining a physical setup very reminiscent of the 'fishbowl'
approach where there is a panel setup at the front of the discussion
area where one person per technology gets a seat at the table and the
discussion ensues from there, perhaps with these people discussing
amongst themselves or even maybe fielding Qs from the other 'audience'
members. When someone from the audience wants to take the seat from
one of the people at the table, they evict the present spokesperson
for that particular technology and take their seat at the front of the
room.

This is just my 60-second brain-dump and may be nothing but a terrible
set of completely unworkable ideas, so if anyone has other thoughts,
have at it -- I have no pride :D

-Steve B.

[Alex Hung]

I think all three ideas sounds great! :) Seriously though, I think we
should start on #1 since I'm not sure what the experience level of all
the attendees would be w.r.t. ORM. Then move onto #1a so we have
something more concrete to discuss. And if examples are needed to
illustrate points, #2 can be used for that.

I have used NHibernate and L2Q, both in a relatively straightforward
environment/setup so I can't speak too much on relative merit between
the two. But I do have some strong opinions about DDD and PI, etc. so
I am definitely will be grabbing a seat during the discussion!

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

I can cover SubSonic.
but not ADO.NET ;)

Idea1,1a,2 ... sounds good (But how much time do you think you have ;-)


Are we going to show code if yes how is that done with the fishbowl?

Is this one way of doing the fishbowl because it looks like it wont work out so well here are some problems
Can people that are not sitting in the bowl ask questions? (This I think is one of the main successes)
And if someone asks a question about on specific ORM who goes off?

Maybe we divide it into two parts? (Don't think that will work people start leaving when you say now is question time please wait till we get into place)

[Stephen Bohlen]

I think certainly yes, the audience = allowed to ask questions (and answer them too if desired without having to sit in a chair per-se).  The goal (in my mind) is for just enough structure for their to be some loose agreement on process but not so much that it in any way stifles useful/valuable input.

 

Not sure if code will happen (or if it could, how the logistics would work), but whiteboard sure seems useful (but that might just be my own preference for always having a surface to doodle on when discussion ideas).

 

Your point about schedule/duration is well-taken and that kinds of echos Alex's point about maybe we stick with #1 out of the gate instead of trying to fit a day's worth of discussion into an hour-and-a-half meeting :)

 

Certainly open to entirely other ideas; those were just my first fleeting thougths on the matter to get the ball rolling on thinking about the best way to 'structure' this so that its useful/meaningful but not a room full of independent conversations that nobody can find a way to benefit from (unless more chaos = perhaps more useful in which case we say "lets see what happens and react with agility to whatever happens").

[Daniel Berlin]

These are all good ideas and great points to consider.  I'd like to submit the following: I feel that an organized forum with a clear structure that everyone can understand (perhaps even a rudimentary agenda) will serve to avoid chaotic discussion that not everyone will be interested in.  I think that there can be a tendency for a small handful of strongly opinionated speakers to debate on details that may or may not reflect the interests of the group at large.

I think that there should be NO efforts made on our part to stifle conversations, or even productive chaos, for that mattter.  At the same time, I think that in order for this meeting to really be a success, there must be a clear agenda to keep us somewhat focused.

That being said, I think that the fishbowl structure could work very well.  Perhaps we might start out with a couple of "speakers", who are given a short period of time to introduce some concepts from #1.  Questions should be encouraged, but the goal should be to deliver new information to the audience as a whole. 

After all speakers have briefly presented personal experiences with different tools or reasons why we use ORM at all, then we can shift the focus to more of an open forum discussion, where the audience can replace sitting speakers when they want to present information.

If we can stick to the idea that the seated speakers are fielding questions and presenting information, whereas audience members are asking questions and bringing up points of discussion, then I think it will work itself out.  Basically, the "panel" should be addressing the audience as an expert on the subject of ORM, but anyone has the authority to sit on the panel.

I would shy away from having audience members answering questions and sharing personal experiences without sitting down, because then there is no longer a point to having a panel, we might as well just form a large standing (or sitting) group and have an open forum discussion.

+1 for the whiteboard, it should not be hard to get one handy.

Also, I am happy to act as facilitator for whatever structure we decide on, with the primary objective being to make the meeting a success for everyone.

-Dan

[Stephen Bohlen]

That's a great point about the audience answering Qs starting to degenerate the structure beyond useful recognition and also the 'small groups focus on topics others may find less value in', thus defeating one of the purposes of the 'group' in the first place.

 

I think we're all looking to strike a balance between 'productive dynamism' and 'unproductive chaos' -- your suggestions sound like we're trending towards something that might just work for us; good idea(s).

 

Also, your suggestion that someone referee...er...facilitate :D as a somewhat neutral party is also a good one and a needed role that would be very important to fill.

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

So questions from everybody and answers only the ones that are sitting - this sounds like it can work.

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Berlin <daniel....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Daniel Berlin]

Yes, if anyone would like to field a question from the audience, that's great, but they should be encouraged to take a seat on the panel to do so.  If I'm not mistaken, this is the general format for this type of discussion, no?

I have already volunteered as a neutral party to ensure that things go smoothly and are organized according to our desires.  Are there any others interested in filling this role?  If not, I will assume responsibility until such a time as I am unable to do so or someone else would like to share the load.  :-)

Also, I will update the meetup information to include our topic decision.  Once we decide on a format, I will include that.

-Dan

[Stephen Bohlen]

Yes, the general rule-of-thumb is that you have to take a seat to offer an answer (and it seems this should generally be enforced pretty consistently).

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

From what it look to me is that you can only talk if you are Seated.

But questions from anybody looks like it can work.

What will the initial speakers try to bring out when they start? (I don't think this is ORM vs ORM)

Is there anything that we want to start with (Some overview on ALT.NET, ORM or whatever)?  

[Stephen Bohlen]

I would agree that the stricker interpretation puts the audience into 'passive-listener-mode' but am thinking that we can make a real-time decision to either relax these rules or not depending on the relative expertise/knowledge of attendees.

 

My thoughts are that...

 

1) sitting in the chair seems to me to make sense if you have something more than a question to answer (e.g., something to *discuss* vs. something to ask about)

 

2) the threshold for wanting to sit in the chair is pretty high (e.g., you're in the 'fishbowl') so depending on the level of participation of attendees, this may limit some questioners from asking questions for fear they get trapped in the chair but have no answers of their own to give

 

It seems to me that the stricter rules are more appropriate in either a larger group or a group where there is relative equality among participants; if the group = small (not sure what 'small' really means in this context!) or if participants are at varying levels of knowledge/expertise on the discussion topic, its harder to be effective with the stricter ruleset (IMHO).

[Mark Pollack]

Instead of starting right away with the discussion a small presentation on the subject would be useful to get everyone on some common ground.   I mention it because I do have some very general intro slides on ORM that we use in our training course so no-one is on the spot to do this work for the first meeting.  The slides cover at a 10,000 foot level the object/relational mismatch and orm benefits and would be about 10-15 min.  It might in fact be too rudimentary for the typical ‘alt.neter’, so I can forward to those who want to decide on the matter.  It doesn’t explicitly contrast approaches or mention specific products, so that will leave plenty of stuff left to discuss.

 

Mark

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

Mark that sounds great.

If we just have ALT.NETters then there is no need but I think there will be people that don't know anything or just heard about ORM

Can you email it to me

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Mark Pollack <mark.p...@springsource.com> wrote:

Instead of starting right away with the discussion a small presentation on the subject would be useful to get everyone on some common ground.   I mention it because I do have some very general intro slides on ORM that we use in our training course so no-one is on the spot to do this work for the first meeting.  The slides cover at a 10,000 foot level the object/relational mismatch and orm benefits and would be about 10-15 min.  It might in fact be too rudimentary for the typical 'alt.neter', so I can forward to those who want to decide on the matter.  It doesn't explicitly contrast approaches or mention specific products, so that will leave plenty of stuff left to discuss.

 

Mark

 

 

 

From: nyal...@googlegroups.com [mailto:nyal...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bohlen
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:00 PM
To: nyal...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Inaugural meeting structure/form/content ideas

 

That's a great point about the audience answering Qs starting to degenerate the structure beyond useful recognition and also the 'small groups focus on topics others may find less value in', thus defeating one of the purposes of the 'group' in the first place.

[Stephen Bohlen]

Yitzchok, can you send me a copy for review as well --?

Thanks,

-Steve B.

---

From: "Yitzchok (adminjew)" <admi...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:55:32 -0400

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

Here is an interesting blog post from the creator of LLBNGEN Pro (Franz Bouma)

Solving the Data Access problem: to O/R map or not To O/R map

on why everyone seems to look at the subject of ORM from a different perspective and why each of the ORM tool is different.

Bill thanks for this one

[Mark Pollack]

Hi,

Oren Eini is still in town and oddly enough he didn’t know about the meeting tomorrow but is now coming.   I think it would be good to have a q/a period with him regarding hibernate issues/roadmap after the fishbowl to make the most of this opportunity.

[Yitzchok (adminjew)]

Hi Mark,

It is the 4th Thursday of the month (this month it will be Sep 25th) not Sep 4th

 

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Pollack <mark.p...@springsource.com> wrote:

Hi,

Oren Eini is still in town and oddly enough he didn't know about the meeting tomorrow but is now coming.   I think it would be good to have a q/a period with him regarding hibernate issues/roadmap after the fishbowl to make the most of this opportunity.

Mark

[Mark Pollack]

Doh, I need to improve my reading comprehension skills J

Thanks,