[okfn-coord] OKCon feedback

[Martin Keegan]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> Just saw this:
> 
>   http://hugh.whatreallypissesmeoff.com/?p=50

Thanks for drawing this to wider attention.

I understand we may have had some sort of unexpected problem with the
venue, which compounded some problems with the programme contents. Some
items on the programme were felt to be less relevant than others, and the
latter had to cede time to the former due to everything being plenary at
short notice. We were very unlucky with the AV kit, catering and the
trains.

It was my impression that we also had a few no-shows in the Open Spaces
which may have altered the balance too.

Soliciting topics from the floor probably doesn't fit well with having a
programme committee work things out in advance, which is my preferred
option. Having an effectively floor-editable agenda, which was updated
onto the wiki, was a beautiful touch and it's a shame it wasn't completely
successful.

I get the impression it wasn't clear who was supposed to say "No, we don't
think your talk is right for our event", and if anyone ever thought this,
he/she didn't think it strongly enough to request/establish a mechanism
for having it said. Anyway, a programme committee knocks that on the head.

>  * some of the middle speakers (particularly Andrius's lot by sounds
> of it) were a bit 'bizarre' (which I agree with)

I don't mind bizarreness. Questionable relevance, however, is a problem.
Hugh Glaser also mentioned this in his blog "Perhaps good fun, but excuse
me if I find it hard to see the link to Open Knowledge."

Given the shortness of many of the talks, we're only really dealing with
about half an hour worth of material which was of questionable relevance:
the goldbug / finance talk, PD fashion, the Kenyan peace group, and
Andrius' two slots on Worknets and open source learning materials.

>  * key closing paragraph: "On this evidence, the Open Knowledge
> Foundation are the last people I would get involved with - not a clue
> how to get people who don’t actually care (like me) to further their
> cause; or perhaps they want to prove me wrong?"

Well, the last sentence is very gracious of him and I'd love to prove him
wrong.
 
I agree with all your suggestions.

I'd add:

* re-usable laminated direction signs
* an annual State of the Union address (a bit like David Bollier's last
    piece), and/or short reports from each active working group
* soliciting electronic copies of talks for pre-loading onto a laptop

Mk