Re: Collecting questions and notes for each talk; breakout sessions

[Amin Bandali]

Karl Voit writes:

> Sacha Chua (sacha@sachachua.com) wrote:
>
>> > > I like pushing all questions to a pad; I also like being flexible and
>> > > staying out of the way of presenters who may be pulling things
>> > > directly from IRC.  The only obvious danger I see would be if a
>> >
>> 
>> I'd recommend pad first, then IRC if the speaker feels confident about
>> monitoring both, since the IRC conversations tend to move swiftly and go on
>> tangents. IRC is great for reading the room, though. If we pull off the
>> extended Q&A, there might be multiple IRC threads in the same channel. I
>> wonder how we can make it manageable...
>
> As you might have notices last year, I'm a very big fan of public
> pads for collectively writing show-notes, comments, questions and so
> forth. This reduces personal effort to a minimum due to the work of
> many volunteers with the same aim/goal.
>
> Etherpad has a very low entry barrier. Only people who won't
> activate JavaScript might be against it. So I think that two
> channels for collecting questions could be a good approach - I think
> this also worked well last year: IRC and one Etherpad for the event.
>
> I can't comment on BBB since I never used it myself.

Etherpad (primary) + IRC (secondary) it is for questions. :-)

> The thing with after-talk-sessions that would worry me is that I
> most probably want to attend the follow-up talk while the
> breakout-session is ongoing. I'm not totally convinced myself about
> this. How about the idea that we ask the people giving talks that
> they suggest a time-slot in the upcoming days for those
> breakout-sessions? Those slots should be arranged that way, that
> most attendees of the conference (we did not discuss attendee survey
> yet) are able to attend in reasonable time of the day. I presume
> this is USA and Europe.

Hmm, I think this got kind of glossed over in my last two emails to
speakers, but I don't think it will be a big issue?  Sacha, do you have
any thoughts about this?

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature