Brady Forrest writing about unconferences:
Unfortunately, a common piece of feedback I hear is that they got more out of hallway conversations than the sessions. I’ve also found this to be true.
That’s exactly what people say about, um, conferences.
Conference sessions, whether of the lecture and presentation type associated with normal conferences or the more interactive type associated with unconferences, only work for me when the presenter or organizer is extremely knowledgeable and articulate about the topic at hand. Otherwise you get a sleep inducing spiel or bullshit session.
So perhaps some conference should drop sessions almost completely, as they are implied to be low value, and concentrate on making hallway conversation, claimed to be valuable, even moreso.
Update 20061004: Above is the most thoughtless post on this blog so far. I should have only made an ironic comment on Forrest’s post. But I’ll write now what I should have written yesterday, given that I bothered to post here on a topic I don’t know any more about than any other bozo who has groused about conferences:
- Everyone says they get a lot out of hallway conversations, but they don’t. Hallway conversations largely are merely enjoyable and easy (well, not necessarily for me, but I’m pretty introverted) lightweight social chit-chat. Saying hallway talk is the best part of conferences is also self-flattery.
- The post title implies that the way to increase the value of hallway conversations is to add structure, a claim that may be without merit.
- Many unconference practices do make sessions a lot like hallway conversations.
- The real problem is that speakers don’t have the right incentives. If a presentation blows, people blow it off. Maybe you get one or two negative comments weeks or months later, if the conference solicited feedback and makes it available to speakers. There should be immediate and public reputational and perhaps financial (if it is a rich conference) repercussions. Any dodo can think of implementations and problems, so I won’t go on.
I think the best thing to do is organize a conference with no conference rooms — just hallways.
So many conference sessions are totally predictable, filled with stump speeches (or other rehashed material). When you’re well-read on a topic, or even just slightly pre-research the speaker/panelists, it’s common for nothing new to come up in a spoken session.
I’d like to see conference sessions with more ‘clash’ and new formats that get speakers (and audiences) out of their routine. Have panelists compete somehow. Discuss vivid hypothetical scenarios. Force people to defend either more extreme versions of their usual viewpoints, or the opposite of their usual viewpoint. Incorporate live voting/etc feedback (via wifi) from the audience.
The energy this could provide would also spillover into the hallway conversations.
Yeah, basically, everyone knows the same things and reads the same feeds so the discussions are usually pretty lame because of no new blood. I think that is why it is so refreshing to see incursions by people outside-of-the-loop at conferences.
I like how SXSW allows for anyone to submit a conference topic. Hopefully, they will allow for people to compete for spots on the panels as well. I think the reputation system has much merit and will promote based upon interest and status.
However, I also think that more brainstorming is in dire need at these events in order to use the expensive face2face time wisely…I really don’t need to hear more about identity or andy size of formats (aka, nano or macro), but would rather see large problems bitten off with specific goals and get people to focus on them collectively to hatch new ideas with current (and new) approaches (and tools).
What is the point of meetings at all if everyone knows and/or the meeting could happen through email. Use the f2f for what’s its good for: high data-rate communication between people.