One of the reasons to put certain types of sessions in certain types of threads would be to accommodate the room setting to be adjusted accordingly. For a discussion setup, I would really want a round table setup and definitely not a cinema setup (as happened a few times this year but also previously). Perhaps for a panel vs presentation this difference is less obvious. Also, clear presentations/panels should get priority in filming (it will be almost impossible to decently film round table discussions) and it sets clearer expectations towards participants if the types are more clearly separated. Again, this difference is most prominent with round table discussions and perhaps lightning talks.
Lodewijk 2013/8/17 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > I like Lodewijk's suggestion for a single organising table, but I > disagree with organising the tracks by format. For me the topic was always > more important than whether it was a round table, a presentation or > whatever. In practice some wikimanias like Haifa and I think Buenos Aires > will have a host language thread. If rooms vary in size then it makes sense > to put the more popular presentations into the larger rooms. But my hope is > that the organisers look at who is interested in attending which events, > and try to accommodate that and not have events clash with other events > that the same people want to see > > > On 17 August 2013 09:59, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it would perhaps also be helpful if we would simply create a table on >> wikimaniawiki with all sessions, and a column for slides, a column for >> notes and a column for video. That way people don't have to dig into the >> different pages and people can quickly see what info is still missing. >> >> But then, this has little to do any longer with changing how the tracks >> work. So getting back to that discussion: >> >> Sam: I totally agree to make the differences between tracks more >> significant. Having a track totally dedicated for round table discussions, >> having a track for sessions where people can give input/feedback but with >> very significant presentation parts (like the one about the wikimedia >> blog), a TED'ish track and a track for panel discussions would be great. >> There are of course always some exceptions like when they are topically >> connected (i.e. Wiki Loves Stuff sessions that were helpfully placed >> together this year). >> >> Also, I have always had a preference for less keynote sessions - >> especially the repeating ones (Jimmy, Sue, Board Q&A). I mean, many agree >> that the Executive Director & board thing is important, but to be honest, >> there are many people who find that kind of boring and who would prefer to >> discuss editing guidelines or learn how to review texts on Wikisource, and >> view Sue's speech later on video (or not at all). I would be in favor of >> moving away from keynotes to 'supertalks' which have less parallel >> competitors, but are not a session for 100% of the audience necessarily. >> >> And the board Q&A is definitely more and more dull because it is barely >> discussion and mostly answering preselected questions asked by a staff >> member (although some improvement was made this year). Splitting that Q&A >> up in three sessions with each three board members and a critical panel >> moderator, parallel to each other could give a much better dynamic and >> topical focus. >> >> It's good to have this discussion! We always shout and brainstorm about >> it at Wikimania, it just never gets realized it seems... >> >> Lodewijk >> >> >> 2013/8/17 Peter B Meyer <pbmeyer22...@yahoo.com> >> >>> >>> 2013/8/16 Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone, >>>> >>>> and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a >>>> session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite >>>> presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters >>>> who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison. >>>> >>> >>> 2013/08/15 Arjuna Rao Chavala <arjunar...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance >>> would enable more productive sessions. >>> >>> >>> It's helpful if presenters put links to relevant >>> slides/documents/materials/videos on the submission page, that is the page >>> on which the proposed presentation or session was originally submitted to >>> Wikimania program (findable here: >>> http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Submissions). Many do >>> this but most don't, it seems. It helps people find that stuff before the >>> conference, during the presentation itself, and after the conference, and >>> it can be updated whenever new materials (e.g. videos) become available. >>> It works also for rejected submissions which evolve into lightning talks >>> or other discussions or re-submissions in later years. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions >>>> >>>> Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I >>>> just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were >>>> traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if >>>> any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more >>>> different approaches.) >>>> >>>> > Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is >>>> more >>>> > discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year >>>> when it >>>> > was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated >>>> track, >>>> > with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the >>>> discussion >>>> > track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent >>>> topics are >>>> > covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved >>>> experience - >>>> > that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone >>>> preparing >>>> > the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I >>>> just don't >>>> > think the whole schedule should be like that. >>>> >>>> A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was >>>> dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no >>>> audience participation. Like a TED-talk track. >>>> >>>> +1! For me a clear super-prepared presentation is fun. My head is >>> too clouded to follow and remember long-form nuanced specialized debate, on >>> most topics. Most of Wikimania can be more interactive of course, but I >>> like this concept for a track. >>> >>> I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and >>>> discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be >>>> presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to >>>> discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of >>>> these modes they intend to participate in. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> Cheers >>> Arjuna >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
