is schedule, is not schedule
Dan Chudnov
today and see that the whole day has already been planned out (which
seems to be new as of the last few days). This seems to conflict with
the barcamp idea that nothing is scheduled in advance:
http://barcamp.org/TheRulesOfBarCamp (#6)
Also there's some mention of a competition and prizes and teams
without any explication of what those might mean at all. I've heard
something more about this over private email but it all seems to
conflict with the not-planning-things-out-in-advance tenet of barcamps.
I'd be inclined to not want to participate at all in a barcamp that
isn't really a barcamp, especially if it centered around any kind of
as-yet-unintroduced competition.
Separately I wasn't aware that there was any kind of cap on the number
of people who can attend, or any kind of registration process other
than adding a name to the list and showing up. Is it actually
possible that somebody whose name is on the list might have their name
removed for another's if they don't confirm via email? That
stipulation was added just yesterday, which was after 36 people had
already signed themselves up. I'm sure any of these people would be
disappointed (at least) to see their name removed and their attendance
not allowed.
-Dan
Gabriel Farrell
> I was surprised to look at the schedule today at http://barcamp.org/RepoCamp
> today and see that the whole day has already been planned out (which
> seems to be new as of the last few days). This seems to conflict with
> the barcamp idea that nothing is scheduled in advance:
>
> http://barcamp.org/TheRulesOfBarCamp (#6)
>
> Also there's some mention of a competition and prizes and teams
> without any explication of what those might mean at all. I've heard
> something more about this over private email but it all seems to
> conflict with the not-planning-things-out-in-advance tenet of barcamps.
I've never been to a BarCamp, but it appears from his reference that Dan
does raise a valid point. Would anyone who took part in putting up the
schedule like to respond?
> I'd be inclined to not want to participate at all in a barcamp that
> isn't really a barcamp, especially if it centered around any kind of
> as-yet-unintroduced competition.
The competition aspect doesn't appeal to me, either.
> Separately I wasn't aware that there was any kind of cap on the number
> of people who can attend, or any kind of registration process other
> than adding a name to the list and showing up. Is it actually
> possible that somebody whose name is on the list might have their name
> removed for another's if they don't confirm via email? That
> stipulation was added just yesterday, which was after 36 people had
> already signed themselves up. I'm sure any of these people would be
> disappointed (at least) to see their name removed and their attendance
> not allowed.
Thanks for mentioning the email-to-attend requirement on the list. I
hadn't seen it. Was that introduced to weed out those (like me) who
aren't paying close enough attention?
Gabriel
Ed Summers
not having a schedule I would encourage them to modify it--as long as
they plan on attending. I agree that the notion of a schedule seems
counter to the "rules of barcamp"; but rules themselves seem kinda
contrary to what I had in mind for this particular barcamp. Some
people are traveling from far away to attend, so I can understand the
desire to have a bit of structure.
As for the contest, it seems harmless, and generally a fine idea to
encourage people to experiment with oai-ore. Nobody is required to
participate at RepoCamp, and attendees can go off and talk about other
stuff while the judging is going on if desired.
//Ed
Ben O'Steen
>
> The wiki is an open space, so if Dan or Gabriel feel strongly about
> not having a schedule I would encourage them to modify it--as long as
> they plan on attending.
That's exactly what I was about to write - 1) it's a wiki 2) It's
still a barcamp so this 'schedule' is not a rule - it may happen in
the background or not at all - but it does fill a nice requirement of
linking topics to people who are willing to lead on a discussion. The
times will be irrelevant on the day really.
> Some
> people are traveling from far away to attend, so I can understand the
> desire to have a bit of structure.
Especially as the theme is 'repositories/libraries' - that's a pretty
broad subject and there are new things that some may not be aware of.
> As for the contest, it seems harmless, and generally a fine idea to
> encourage people to experiment with oai-ore. Nobody is required to
> participate at RepoCamp, and attendees can go off and talk about other
> stuff while the judging is going on if desired.
The competition is actually something running totally separate from
the camp - however, the focus of the competition (using OAI-ORE) is
pretty relevant to us, and who doesn't like the idea of taking $2000
from microsoft with no strings attached to make something open source.
The competition is just being kicked off here - you can choose to
ignore the people involved or to heckle them, I don't care. It just
happens that people involved in that competition are coming along.
I have no idea when the judging or whatever will happen. It doesn't
bother me - I'll be talking to the people I want to at the event,
speakers, podiums or whatever. Remember another 'rule', one from the
unconference concept - rule of 2 feet. People shut up pretty fast when
noone is listening.
Ben O'Steen
David F. Flanders
got the discussion board going!
On Jul 12, 1:02 am, "Ben O'Steen" <bost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/12 Ed Summers <ed.summ...@gmail.com>:
Ed Summers
> > Separately I wasn't aware that there was any kind of cap on the number
> > of people who can attend, or any kind of registration process other
> > than adding a name to the list and showing up. Is it actually
> > possible that somebody whose name is on the list might have their name
> > removed for another's if they don't confirm via email? That
> > stipulation was added just yesterday, which was after 36 people had
> > already signed themselves up. I'm sure any of these people would be
> > disappointed (at least) to see their name removed and their attendance
> > not allowed.
>
> Thanks for mentioning the email-to-attend requirement on the list. I
> hadn't seen it. Was that introduced to weed out those (like me) who
> aren't paying close enough attention?
I don't think there's much need for capping the attendance at this
point. We were able to secure the Montpelier Room which can sit
probably up to 100 people, so I'm not concerned about the space. I've
adjusted the wiki accordingly. Originally we thought we might be in a
much smaller room in the basement of Madison (which was the reason for
the 30-40 cap), but luckily (with the help of Steve Engratt, and the
kindness of JISC to pay for the room) we were able to get a much more
spacious room.
I hope that nobody was removed from the list. It doesn't look like it
to me.
/Ed
Gabriel Farrell
> Speaking as the person who has (tried) to organize the room at LC ...
> I don't think there's much need for capping the attendance at this
> point. We were able to secure the Montpelier Room which can sit
> probably up to 100 people, so I'm not concerned about the space. I've
> adjusted the wiki accordingly. Originally we thought we might be in a
> much smaller room in the basement of Madison (which was the reason for
> the 30-40 cap), but luckily (with the help of Steve Engratt, and the
> kindness of JISC to pay for the room) we were able to get a much more
> spacious room.
Great! Thanks for arranging for the space, Ed and Steve, and thanks to
JISC for the funding.
Gabriel
David F. Flanders
orignally told me, so that is why that notice went up. I'll take it
down straight away. Best, DFF