[okfn-coord] OKCon feedback

Tue Mar 31 13:29:18 UTC 2009

I don't know whether this would be a better conversation to have on
the public okfn-discuss list but let's keep it here for the time being
(maybe we can write saying thanks to everyone who came and some
thoughts for next year highlighting venue issues ...)

I myself was rather unhappy with how OKCon worked out this year.
Ironically I don't think things were that much worse than in previous
years but somehow things seemed not so good -- to take one minor item
we had roughly the same number of attendees but because the room was
so vast it seemed like there were many less.

Similarly, the structure of the programme with putting the main
sessions at start and end was a mistake (for which I think I was
responsible!). We should have stuck with our approach of previous
years of having main sessions at start and then having open sessions
later on -- that way the day doesn't seem so long.

I think we all agree that open space did not work out quite right:
largely because of the problems with the venue (but also that some
signups were very tangentially related to open knowledge). It is
really unfortunate that the original LSE venue fell through so late
and that this meant we didn't have two rooms for the separate Open
Space streams (as we always have done before).

I think it was also ultimately a mistake to have the workshop and
OKCon at the same time. My impression was that the cross-over was
fairly limited -- in fact we actually ended up with some conflict
(e.g. pro wasn't able to really to attend OKCon) -- and it meant the
main coordinators were really exhausted by Saturday.

So to follow-up Jonathan's comments (we already really know this):

  1. We need to sort out proper space earlier
  2. We need a proper programme committee (and should announce earlier)

That said we had around 75 registered (i.e. paying) attendees and 20
or so more who turned up so we had reasonable attendance and I think a
lot of people enjoyed the day. Thanks again to Martin and Becky for
chairing, to Jonathan and Pro for doing so much to organize the event
and Jo and Jordan for coming along. It was great to see everyone and I
think with some fairly minor tweaks we can avoid the pitfalls for next
year.

Rufus

2009/3/30 Martin Keegan <martin at no.ucant.org>:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-coord mailing list
> okfn-coord at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-coord
>