[FOSTEL-List] Re: Structuring the FOSTEL summit

[Zygmuntowicz Michal]

Hi,

both solutions are good. One good point at having more talks
is that you won't miss something that you would not have time/occassion
to find out during evening "freeform" sessions;-) But on the other
hand it may be true that time is better spent hacking together
than splitting into poor attented talks.

Anyway, both formats seems to be fine. I just hope to book
some cheap flight before the Easter:(

For me, the hostel option is fine. But I'd be glad to know if there
will be a chance to get some rooms in a nearby hotel (and its cost:)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Neary" <dave.neary at wengo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [FOSTEL-List] Re: Structuring the FOSTEL summit


>
> Hi,
>
> Craig Southeren wrote:
>> That's a big shame.
>>
>> Most of the good work and relationship-building at the previous FOSTEL
>> conferences was done at night and into the small hours. But that was
>> when we hadthe conference over several days. With a two day conference,
>> there will only be one or two nights, so perhaps this will be less of a
>> concern.
>
> I'm planning on helping people build relationships alright :) I want to
> basically book a restaurant for a meal for everyone on Wednesday
> evening. And the format will lend itself to relationship building, I hope.
>
>> However, I know of several people who are intending to arrive before the
>> conference and stay after. So perhaps it won't just be one night after
>> all :)
>>
>> On this subject, how many nights are you planning for? One, two or three?
>
> I will be block booking the hostel for 2 nights, Tuesday and Wednesday.
> If people want to stay on a third night and fly out Friday, please let
> me know.
>
> For the hotel, I will try for a group rate, and will keep you all posted.
>
>>> Perhaps having one hour for lightning
>>> talks might be the best way to address the concern you have and give all
>>> the participating projects a say - otherwise we will spend the whole two
>>> days in conference sessions, or the talks which are given will be poorly
>>> attended.
>>
>> I agree
>
> OK - let's do that. After lunch on the first day works for me.
>
>> Some people need a full hour. Other people only need 5 minutes. We
>> should give the presenters a choice
>
> The presenters will choose as much time as they can get, and most of the
> presentations you see in a technical conference just aren't interesting.
> I really don't want to sit through 2 days of bullet points.
>
>> Also, I don't see any problem with keeping a continual stream of talks
>> going. People can decide whether to attend or not. The crucial point is
>> to have a published timetable that doesn't change at the last minute so
>> people can plan where they want to be.
>>
>> We don't really have much time to get everyone in
>>
>> Some people may decide not to attend any talks and keep hacking away.
>> Some people may decide to attend all the talks. Either way, that's OK :)
>>
>> What does everyone else think?
>
> I'd like to avoid unending discussions about the format, but I am open
> to changing. I don't think that continual presentations will help us
> achieve our goal of increasing co-operation and synergies between
> projects, and for that reason I heavily favour spending over 50% of the
> time in interactive mode, and under 50% of the time in broadcast mode.
> It will allow me to exercise ruthless quality control, so that all of
> the presentations are interesting to all present - which would be
> impossible otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
>
> -- 
> Dave Neary
> OpenWengo Community Development Manager
> Email: dave.neary at wengo.com