On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 15:42:20 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 15:03:45 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
That is what Joakim is talking about - changing the main event
to be more like the after-hours stuff everyone loves so much,
to actually use all the time to maximize the potential of
in-person time.
I'm talking about growing two different qualities much more,
with my two suggested alternatives to the DConf format.
1. Ditch the talks, focus on in-person interaction. That's why
I suggest having almost no talks, whether at a central DConf or
not. You clearly agree with this.
2. Decentralize the DConf location, casting a much wider net
over many more cities. Walter and Adam could rent a room and
setup a Seattle DConf location, Andrei and Steven in Boston,
Ali and Shammah in the bay area, and so on (only illustrative,
I'm not imposing this on any of these people). Some of the
money that went to renting out a large conference room in
Munich can instead be spent on these much smaller rooms in each
city.
Charge some minimal fee for entrance in some locations, if that
means they can spend time with W&A and to cover costs. I
wouldn't charge anything more than $2 in my city for my event,
as event organizers here have found that that's low enough to
keep anyone who's really interested while discouraging fake
RSVPs, ie those who have no intent of ever showing up but
strangely sign up anyway (I know an organizer who says he had
150 people RSVP for a Meetup here and only 15 showed up).
By keeping travel and ticket costs much lower, you invite much
more participation.
Obviously my second alternative to DConf listed above wouldn't
be decentralized at all, only enabling in-person interaction at
a still-central DConf.
Mix and match as you see fit.
I totally agree with you on your first point, i.e. making DConf
more interactive. I have had very good experiences with formats
like open space or barcamp. However, these formats only work if
people are actually willing to participate and bring in their own
ideas. Not having anything prepared can in rare cases lead to the
situation where there is a lack of things to talk about (I doubt
this would be the case for the D community, but it is something
to keep in mind).
However, I must say I disagree with your second point, i.e.
decentralising DConf. As many people here have already mentioned,
DConf is about talking to people. And to me it is especially
important to talk to lots of different people whom I otherwise
don’t get the chance to talk to in person. By decentralising the
conference, we would limit the number of different people you can
get in touch with directly by a huge amount.
Just to use myself as an example, last Docnf I was able to talk
to Andrei, Walter, Mike, Ali, Jonathan, Kai and lots of others
and exchange ideas with them. This would not have been possible
with a decentralised event (except for the off chance that all
those people by chance attend the same local „meetup“).
On the other hand, I have to admit that decentralising the event
would open it up for a much bigger audience, which definitely is
a good idea. However, I would much prefer to have something like
a main DConf and if there are enough interested people in an area
who will not go to the main event, they can host their own mini
conference and watch streams, make their own small workshops etc.
This is what happens a lot at the Chaos Communication Congress
and it seems to work really well (granted, in this case it might
also be related to the limited number of tickets).
