7 comments

• 

  Jeff Jarvis

  3 years ago

  Matthew: I think it's easieir to make the conversion than having a separate unconference room. It's about blowing up the panel and making the room the panel (Dave Winer's words): Start with the end of the session, with the questions. And turn the questions around and ask the people in the room to share their knowledge, which is greater than that on the panel. Doesn't mean it's anarchy; it's still a directed conversation. But it's a conversation.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks, Jeff. And we definitely want the panels and the keynotes and the workshops to be conversations -- I'm just not sure our audience (or at least not all of them) are going to be as knowledgeable as the ones at the unconference you went to, and so we want to strike a balance between blowing up the panel and still maintaining some structure. That's why I said we've been wrestling with it -- it's definitely a work in progress. Thanks for the comment.
  
  Mathew
  reply
• 

  Andrew

  3 years ago

  I run a small non-conference for designers called Design Engaged. We've also dispensed with the audience/speaker division, but have found that imposing certain other structures really does make the event run smoothly, and forces everyone to participate in ways they feel comfortable. You can look at the event blog at www.designenaged.com. I've written about the conference structure in 2005 here and about the 2004 version here.
  
  I think it's great that people want to disrupt the boring conference form, but that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Structured presentations, typically prepareed in advance, give people time to plan and craft a presentation of ideas. Leaving room for discussion and real interaction between audience and speaker is the trick. Design Engaged also builds in lots of other *sizes* of group interaction: we spend about a day in small groups of 6 or so, outside the conference space, and then spend some time in those groups doing actual work. Leave lots of time for lunches dinners and breaks, and everyone who wants to can find time to meet and talk to everyone.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I think you are right, and that it is useful to have some structure, provided there is lots of room for discussion and engagement and so on built in.
  
  Mathew
  reply
• 

  Karl

  3 years ago

  Hi, Mathew, I'm Karl Martino and I helped organize the structure of the norgs: unconference we just had in Philadelphia.
  
  "I’m just not sure our audience (or at least not all of them) are going to be as knowledgeable as the ones at the unconference you went to, and so we want to strike a balance between blowing up the panel and still maintaining some structure."
  
  The act of trusting your participants (note they are no longer the audience), doesn't preclude structure. In fact, you still very much need it. We used Dave Winer's BloggerCon cheat sheet as a starting point [1]. Jeff summs it up very well when he says "Start with the end of the session, with the questions. And turn the questions around and ask the people in the room to share their knowledge, which is greater than that on the panel."
  
  We're there some who knew the subject matter more than others? Yes. But that *helped* the exchange that occured here. It was eye opening.
  
  You'll need a good moderator to kick things off and hold things together - a tough job to be sure. Food and as Andrew suggets and breaks - because discussions are intense (I can't imagine falling asleep at one of these).
  
  1. http://www.bloggercon.org/iii/newbies
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks, Karl. And I think we are definitely shooting for something along those lines -- not sure whether it will meet the official definition of a "unconference," but we want to get as much conversation and discussion and input going as possible.
  
  Mathew
  reply
• 

  Karl

  3 years ago

  A pleasure and good luck with Mesh 2.0.
  reply