Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
I've attended all manner of conferences/meetings from big to small, invite-only to open doors, expensive to free, heavily organized to improvised. I think far and away the most productive conferences for groups of 20+ people are Unconference/Barcamp/"Gunner-style" conferences, which are totally open, have no fixed agenda, and have 1-4 moderators to run the intro sections of the day where the day's agenda is created. These kinds of events have also been the most fun conferences/meetings that I've attended. What such an event does require is that people as a group have enough social skills to know when it is appropriate to talk, and also to know when it is appropriate to ask someone to stop talking until another time/place. Good moderators help a lot with that task. Then we can have focused, productive meetings without having to manage who can attend. It also takes much less pre-planning to run such an event, since the organizers do not need to work out topics, schedules, etc. Just space and overall timing (i.e. 5 rooms from 9am-6pm). I am willing to serve as a moderator, though I can't say I'm the best at it. I've helped organized and run DrupalCamp, MySQLCamp, iPhoneDevCamp, PdCon, and more. If there is a budget for this event, then Allen Gunn/Aspiration Tech could be hired to run the event. He's an excellent moderator, especially for groups of people that are unfamiliar with this format. .hc Bob (Robert) Cavanaugh: > Hi, > Just a thought: Have a "Star chamber" meeting for the technical group, > invitation only. After that have a 1/2 to 1 hour session open to all where > the technical people can present their progress and invite comment. This way > you have a focused working session with the key people, but maintain > community trust by allowing general input. > > Thanks, > > Bob Cavanaugh > >> -Original Message- >> From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of >> fmv1...@gmail.com >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:24 AM >> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org; n...@enigmail.net >> Subject: Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? >> >> >>> ---------- >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200 >>> From: "n...@enigmail.net" >>> To: GnuPG-Users >>> Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? >>> Message-ID: <55cadd38.5030...@enigmail.net> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit. >>> It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools >>> dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption met to getting >>> to know each other personally and discuss several issues. >>> For details, see e.g. >>> - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html >>> - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html >>> >>> The meting initially was organized by me to bring together a few >>> guys/projects working in that area, but it became pretty big (about 30 >>> people). This caused some problems, because we had a host with limited >>> space (so I finally even had to reject some people wanting to attend). >>> >>> We also discussed there how to continue. >>> On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that anybody >> wanting >>> to attend could do that and to give trust by transparency. >>> On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus on technical >>> issues (having a well signal to noise ratio) in a not-too-large group >>> of "experts". >>> We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both interests. >>> >>> Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year. >>> And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue. >>> >>> What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public but with >>> some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another is simply >>> limited space although I don't know where we can meet this time). >>> For example: >>> - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting >>> - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join >>> the first meeting >>> (but how do we handle that?) >>> - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role" >>> in the community >>> - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally >>> send only 1 or 2 guys >>> >>> The o
RE: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
Hi, Just a thought: Have a "Star chamber" meeting for the technical group, invitation only. After that have a 1/2 to 1 hour session open to all where the technical people can present their progress and invite comment. This way you have a focused working session with the key people, but maintain community trust by allowing general input. Thanks, Bob Cavanaugh > -Original Message- > From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of > fmv1...@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:24 AM > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org; n...@enigmail.net > Subject: Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? > > > > -- > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200 > > From: "n...@enigmail.net" > > To: GnuPG-Users > > Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? > > Message-ID: <55cadd38.5030...@enigmail.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > Hi all, > > > > in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit. > > It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools > > dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption met to getting > > to know each other personally and discuss several issues. > > For details, see e.g. > > - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html > > - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html > > > > The meting initially was organized by me to bring together a few > > guys/projects working in that area, but it became pretty big (about 30 > > people). This caused some problems, because we had a host with limited > > space (so I finally even had to reject some people wanting to attend). > > > > We also discussed there how to continue. > > On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that anybody > wanting > > to attend could do that and to give trust by transparency. > > On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus on technical > > issues (having a well signal to noise ratio) in a not-too-large group > > of "experts". > > We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both interests. > > > > Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year. > > And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue. > > > > What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public but with > > some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another is simply > > limited space although I don't know where we can meet this time). > > For example: > > - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting > > - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join > > the first meeting > > (but how do we handle that?) > > - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role" > > in the community > > - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally > > send only 1 or 2 guys > > > > The obvious other option is to open the meeting to everybody willing > > to come, which raises a couple of risks (simply too many people, too > > many non-experts or people who want to change the focus, ...). > > > > So, my questions are: > > = > > > > Is it OK for the public/community, if we meet in a way that is limited > > as describe above (just for practical reasons)? > > > > Is it OK even if we can't promise full transparency (e.g. by video > > taping sessions)? > > > > Would it even be OK, if we meet and constraint what is spoken there to > > the Chatham House Rule (see > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule). > > Some people requested that because > > if anything they say might become public, they might or even have to > > be careful what they say. > > > > Any general thoughts or proposals about how to deal with this? > > > > Note that I don't want to have it too complicated. > > I organize this meeting in my free time to bring the issues of this > > community forward. > > And just having too many people is already a problem. > > I need an approach I can handle. > > Or is it better to have no meeting at all instead of a meeting with > > some limitations? > > > > Best > > Nico > > > > Dear Nico, > > I think you are trying to achieve a compromise that is not possible. If I > understood correctly you are trying to reconcile developers interest with > layman's enthusiasm. I myself belong to the second group. > A good idea would be to organize one event for the developers and another > open event so everyone can join. Then I think everybody would be happy. > Note that some overlap between groups is expected and healthy for the > community. > > Kind regards, > > -- > Felipe Martins Vieira > Public PGP key: http://pgp.surfnet.nl > Key Fingerprint: 9640 F192 63DA D637 6750 AC08 7BCA 19BB 0E69 E45D ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
> -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200 > From: "n...@enigmail.net" > To: GnuPG-Users > Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? > Message-ID: <55cadd38.5030...@enigmail.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi all, > > in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit. > It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools > dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption > met to getting to know each other personally and > discuss several issues. > For details, see e.g. > - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html > - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html > > The meting initially was organized by me to bring together > a few guys/projects working in that area, but it became > pretty big (about 30 people). This caused some problems, > because we had a host with limited space (so I finally > even had to reject some people wanting to attend). > > We also discussed there how to continue. > On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that > anybody wanting to attend could do that and to give trust > by transparency. > On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus > on technical issues (having a well signal to noise ratio) > in a not-too-large group of "experts". > We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both > interests. > > Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year. > And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue. > > What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public > but with some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another > is simply limited space although I don't know where we can meet > this time). > For example: > - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting > - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join > the first meeting > (but how do we handle that?) > - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role" > in the community > - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally > send only 1 or 2 guys > > The obvious other option is to open the meeting to > everybody willing to come, which raises a couple of risks > (simply too many people, too many non-experts or people > who want to change the focus, ...). > > So, my questions are: > = > > Is it OK for the public/community, if we meet in a way > that is limited as describe above (just for practical reasons)? > > Is it OK even if we can't promise full transparency (e.g. by video > taping sessions)? > > Would it even be OK, if we meet and constraint what is spoken there > to the Chatham House Rule (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule). > Some people requested that because > if anything they say might become public, they might or even > have to be careful what they say. > > Any general thoughts or proposals about how to deal with this? > > Note that I don't want to have it too complicated. > I organize this meeting in my free time to bring the issues > of this community forward. > And just having too many people is already a problem. > I need an approach I can handle. > Or is it better to have no meeting at all instead of a meeting > with some limitations? > > Best > Nico > Dear Nico, I think you are trying to achieve a compromise that is not possible. If I understood correctly you are trying to reconcile developers interest with layman's enthusiasm. I myself belong to the second group. A good idea would be to organize one event for the developers and another open event so everyone can join. Then I think everybody would be happy. Note that some overlap between groups is expected and healthy for the community. Kind regards, -- Felipe Martins Vieira Public PGP key: http://pgp.surfnet.nl Key Fingerprint: 9640 F192 63DA D637 6750 AC08 7BCA 19BB 0E69 E45D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
Hi all, in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit. It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption met to getting to know each other personally and discuss several issues. For details, see e.g. - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html The meting initially was organized by me to bring together a few guys/projects working in that area, but it became pretty big (about 30 people). This caused some problems, because we had a host with limited space (so I finally even had to reject some people wanting to attend). We also discussed there how to continue. On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that anybody wanting to attend could do that and to give trust by transparency. On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus on technical issues (having a well signal to noise ratio) in a not-too-large group of "experts". We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both interests. Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year. And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue. What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public but with some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another is simply limited space although I don't know where we can meet this time). For example: - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join the first meeting (but how do we handle that?) - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role" in the community - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally send only 1 or 2 guys The obvious other option is to open the meeting to everybody willing to come, which raises a couple of risks (simply too many people, too many non-experts or people who want to change the focus, ...). So, my questions are: = Is it OK for the public/community, if we meet in a way that is limited as describe above (just for practical reasons)? Is it OK even if we can't promise full transparency (e.g. by video taping sessions)? Would it even be OK, if we meet and constraint what is spoken there to the Chatham House Rule (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule). Some people requested that because if anything they say might become public, they might or even have to be careful what they say. Any general thoughts or proposals about how to deal with this? Note that I don't want to have it too complicated. I organize this meeting in my free time to bring the issues of this community forward. And just having too many people is already a problem. I need an approach I can handle. Or is it better to have no meeting at all instead of a meeting with some limitations? Best Nico -- Nicolai M. Josuttis www.josuttis.de mailto:n...@enigmail.net PGP fingerprint: CFEA 3B9F 9D8E B52D BD3F 7AF6 1C16 A70A F92D 28F5 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
