Wikimania 2006/Program/2006-03-02
< Wikimania 2006 | Program
Program meeting, March 2, 2006, Thursday 23:00UTC, freenode#wikimania
Agenda edit
- Theme composition: types of speakers, broad areas to address within themes, what sorts of things do we want to see? What kinds of people/representation from the community? Project representation? Mix of "star power" and other people? Audience? (see comment on talk page)
- Theme reports : state of the field; related conferences; list of 10-30 potential speakers, from different backgrounds, countries, occupations
- Schedule for deciding on speakers -- ranked list back to phoebe/sj by 16th
- special meeting on weekend to discuss speakers in-depth?
- Communicating with theme teams - emails okay?
- Proposed Thursday weekly meetings, indefinitely?
- next : Thursday Mar. 9th
Condensed notes edit
We went through the agenda backwards, as several people had to leave quickly
- Amgine wants a FAQ for contributors -- this seems like a good idea (we didn't talk about what to put in it, though)
- Scheduling: Decided on having ongoing weekly Thursday program meetings, 23:00UTC, for now - if you can't make this time please leave a note on the meetings page or send mail to phoebe
- Meeting this weekend (March 5, Sunday) to decide on individual speakers -- put down your best time, 23:00UTC is default
- Deadline in two weeks - March 16 - for getting together a prioritized list of speakers for each theme - (10 names to sj/phoebe?) -- general discussion about the various types of speakers to happen here; more private discussion about various speakers within tracks via email
- What kinds of speakers? How to balance & prioritize? (diversity, mix of star power & unknowns, etc)
link to lots of various speakers: https://www.socialtext.net/speakers/index.cgi
- How many speakers?: -- estimated number of slots we have - 7 1.5 hour blocks/track (x 5 tracks) (over the 3 days). 1.5 hour blocks could be left as is for workshops/panels or split up into 1/2 hour blocks for single presentations. This is leaving time for long lunches, plenaries, breaks etc and is not set in stone. Note that I was getting hopelessly confused in the meeting and said it was 7 hrs/day which isn't true.
- How long for talks - no talk should go over an hour; discussion about lengths for regular presentations - 15-25 min? Everyone liked the idea of "lightning talks" - perhaps have a mix of pre-arranged lightning talks, as well as a sign-up sheet on site (a la the open space model).
Log (istics) edit
[3/2/2006 2:52 PM] <brassratgirl> I added a Very Short agenda for today..
[3/2/2006 2:52 PM] <brassratgirl> and have been cleaning up the program page a bit
[3/2/2006 2:53 PM] <brassratgirl> any suggestions for making the pages more useful/readable are welcome :)
[3/2/2006 2:56 PM] <Amgine> <grin> A faq for contributors, so I can read it and answer their questions...
[3/2/2006 2:56 PM] -->| reagleBRKLN (n=reagleBR@69.206.224.97) has joined #wikimania
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <_sj_> hoy joe :)
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <reagleBRKLN> Howdy
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <GerardM> how many proposals have already come in ?
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <_sj_> angela, how's austria?
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <brassratgirl> that's actually a really good idea
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <brassratgirl> 3, I believe
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <Angela> _sj_: cold
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <GerardM> I just added one ..
[3/2/2006 2:57 PM] <_sj_> a faq for speakers, also
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <GerardM> would that make four ?
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <_sj_> still negative 10?
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <brassratgirl> I think so
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <_sj_> yes, four
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <brassratgirl> there's a proposed arbcom panel, a corporate use of wikimedia, and wikis in education..
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <Angela> _sj_: not quite that bad. aroud zero at a guess
[3/2/2006 2:58 PM] <brassratgirl> and GerardM's proposal
[3/2/2006 2:59 PM] <brassratgirl> and people still have six weeks :)
[3/2/2006 2:59 PM] <brassratgirl> Angela: brr
[3/2/2006 2:59 PM] <_sj_> hoy sasha, amg.
[3/2/2006 2:59 PM] <_sj_> whew. zero C is almost managable.
[3/2/2006 2:59 PM] <Angela> it's disappointing so few people have signed up to be on the project team
[3/2/2006 3:00 PM] <GerardM> "Differentiation of authentication regimes to prevent more vandalism" is my first proposal. I am talking with several people about them giving a proposal
[3/2/2006 3:00 PM] <_sj_> yes. that seems to be the team that it would be easiest to join
[3/2/2006 3:00 PM] <GerardM> When I am lucky I will not speak myslef
[3/2/2006 3:00 PM] <_sj_> anyone with an interest in local wikiprojects, for instance
[3/2/2006 3:01 PM] -->| andicat (n=andicat@user-11218vn.dsl.mindspring.com) has joined #wikimania
[3/2/2006 3:01 PM] <_sj_> hi andicat!
[3/2/2006 3:01 PM] <_sj_> some people have to leave early; can we go through the agenda backwards, so we get to scheduling first?
[3/2/2006 3:02 PM] <andicat> hi
[3/2/2006 3:02 PM] <andicat> please, i only have 1/2 an hour
[3/2/2006 3:02 PM] <brassratgirl> yup
[3/2/2006 3:02 PM] <brassratgirl> here's the agenda:
[3/2/2006 3:02 PM] <brassratgirl> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Planning#Agenda
[3/2/2006 3:03 PM] <brassratgirl> so, backwards the first thing is when to have regular weekly meetings
[3/2/2006 3:03 PM] <_sj_> I'm down with regular thursday meetings, until something changes
[3/2/2006 3:03 PM] <brassratgirl> how's the time for people?
[3/2/2006 3:03 PM] <andicat> fine be me, my schedule's unpredictable from one week to next so its a crap shoot anyhow
[3/2/2006 3:04 PM] * asw wakes up
[3/2/2006 3:04 PM] <brassratgirl> neither nsh or cormaggio are here... :( I don't know how they feel about the time
[3/2/2006 3:04 PM] <Angela> it's 11pm where they are
[3/2/2006 3:04 PM] <_sj_> nsh is often around this time...
[3/2/2006 3:05 PM] <asw> time is good for me.
[3/2/2006 3:05 PM] <andicat> maybe we should go straight to schedule for deciding on speakers since that seems like the critical bit?
[3/2/2006 3:05 PM] <_sj_> let's leave it as it is for now
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <brassratgirl> ok
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <_sj_> and get input from people who often can't make it (cormac, alih)
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <brassratgirl> (and neuralis wanted it later, too)
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <brassratgirl> we were talking about having a meeting to discuss specific speakers..
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <brassratgirl> either this weekend or next week
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <andicat> sounds like a good idea
[3/2/2006 3:06 PM] <Angela> agreed
[3/2/2006 3:07 PM] <_sj_> weekend is good for me
[3/2/2006 3:07 PM] <GerardM> and for me
[3/2/2006 3:07 PM] <andicat> fine by me
[3/2/2006 3:07 PM] <_sj_> I put up some tentative times on the wiki
[3/2/2006 3:08 PM] <_sj_> can people sign up for which ones they can make? 2300 UTC is naturally going to be easy for those who are here now...
[3/2/2006 3:08 PM] <brassratgirl> ok. either day is fine with me.
[3/2/2006 3:08 PM] <brassratgirl> how does two weeks from now sound as a deadline for getting a list of speakers to invite done?
[3/2/2006 3:08 PM] <Amgine> Good. Second the suggestion.
[3/2/2006 3:09 PM] <brassratgirl> that is, a prioritized list of people to invite for each track
[3/2/2006 3:09 PM] <brassratgirl> ready to go, with contact info ..
[3/2/2006 3:09 PM] <andicat> sounds completely doable
[3/2/2006 3:09 PM] <_sj_> sounds good; we just need a place to work on that
[3/2/2006 3:09 PM] <brassratgirl> that's the 16th of march.
[3/2/2006 3:10 PM] <asw> nods
[3/2/2006 3:10 PM] <brassratgirl> well, we can work off of the list of speakers that's already there..
[3/2/2006 3:10 PM] <andicat> i'll apologize in advance... i'm trying to get more involved in this but going to sxsw and will be flaky with access
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <brassratgirl> and then have a place on the wikimania wiki for priority dicussions
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <_sj_> ok.
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: ok (fun!)
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <andicat> :-)
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <brassratgirl> tracks could discuss various speakers over email, too ..
[3/2/2006 3:11 PM] <brassratgirl> what seems easiest for folks?
[3/2/2006 3:12 PM] <andicat> email
[3/2/2006 3:12 PM] <_sj_> ditto. (andicat: take good cc-by photos)
[3/2/2006 3:12 PM] <Angela> mostly email, with meetings arranged when needed
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <_sj_> though we can put summaries of discussion online, since there can be useful cross-pollination of ideas re: how to prioritize and balacne a theme
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <_sj_> despite each one being different.
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <brassratgirl> I agree with email
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <brassratgirl> and that brings us to the last (biggest?) agenda point --
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <brassratgirl> what we want to see in each track
[3/2/2006 3:13 PM] <andicat> i humbly suggest that email not be archived on the wiki
[3/2/2006 3:14 PM] <andicat> it would be nice to be able to discuss our thoughts about what different speakers will bring frankly
[3/2/2006 3:14 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat - I agree, and that was Angela's concern as well
[3/2/2006 3:14 PM] <_sj_> andi: right, just summaries
[3/2/2006 3:14 PM] <andicat> cool
[3/2/2006 3:15 PM] <brassratgirl> "speaker x is terrible" should certainly be kept private..
[3/2/2006 3:15 PM] <andicat> exactly!
[3/2/2006 3:15 PM] <brassratgirl> but "I'd like 2 well known speakers and two unknowns" can be made public...
[3/2/2006 3:16 PM] <_sj_> "we really wanted people from <the Brazilian free-culture movement> <Chinese education groups> to speak about free knowledge, and a mix of educators and technologists..."
[3/2/2006 3:16 PM] <_sj_> right
[3/2/2006 3:16 PM] <andicat> yep.. as long as the two unknowns don't know they are being labeled unknown. ;-)
[3/2/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> ok, so let's make a page for that kind of discussion, I guess...
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: :)
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <andicat> So, I think what everyone would like to see is a nice blend of fun, creative thinking and academic respectability.
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <_sj_> heh
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: v. true
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <andicat> My personal feeling is that the best way to do that is to find fun academics!
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <_sj_> academic/other respectability
[3/2/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> other?
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <andicat> artists...
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <andicat> ?
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <_sj_> having major groups/companies/orgs working on world-famous solutions to knowledge/information/education/visualization problems is also respectable
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <Amgine> Microsoft?
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <brassratgirl> (everyone: will the talk page of Wikimania 2006/Program ideas do for now as a place to discuss speakers?)
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <_sj_> having people with 'star power' in their fields, even if not academics, likewise
[3/2/2006 3:18 PM] <GerardM> when InstantCommons gets the nod from Jimmy, we can have Ghanaian developers talk
[3/2/2006 3:19 PM] <andicat> (at a high level yes, I think so)
[3/2/2006 3:19 PM] <_sj_> amgine: not /quite/ what I was thinking. brg: yes.
[3/2/2006 3:19 PM] <brassratgirl> Right, star power is a question in my mind... how many "big names" do we want to go for?
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <brassratgirl> eg., Barry Wellman in sociology, Tim B-L in tech..
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <andicat> "big names" is a relative term.
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: I know
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <_sj_> (gerardm: there are many great dev efforts in africa whom we could have talk; wireless and disconnected solutions, local networks, textbook and printing initiatives)
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <brassratgirl> I had never heard of Wellman, but he seems to be pretty big in the field ..
[3/2/2006 3:20 PM] <_sj_> (but if we are getting a team to do work for wikimedia, that would be very cool.)
[3/2/2006 3:21 PM] <GerardM> they are also into educational software (Kamusi project)
[3/2/2006 3:21 PM] <_sj_> one or two per theme should be enough to roil the waters
[3/2/2006 3:21 PM] <brassratgirl> _sj_: you've been talking about getting more diversity..
[3/2/2006 3:21 PM] <reagleBRKLN> Wellmen led up this, in part, http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_display.asp
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <brassratgirl> reagleBRKLN: right, and lots of other papers too
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <_sj_> brg: yes
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <andicat> I think we also should think in terms of someone from industry, someone from academics, someone from nonprofit if we want to be intellectually diverse.
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <brassratgirl> so figuring out what 'diversity' means in this context could be useful..
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <andicat> (reagle:and books!)
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: I agree
[3/2/2006 3:22 PM] <reagleBRKLN> Ross Mayfield is the go to guy from industry
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <brassratgirl> reagleBRKLN: spoke last year..
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <reagleBRKLN> oops
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <reagleBRKLN> Clary Shirky?
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <_sj_> well, I think the Confluence people from Atlassian are the ones to get
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <_sj_> there's also Joe Krause from JotSpot
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <reagleBRKLN> (consultant/prof)
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <andicat> have you looked at the participant list from wikisym last fall?
[3/2/2006 3:23 PM] <_sj_> he was a bit unking to us last year, but an interesting guy. good for a contentious panel.
[3/2/2006 3:24 PM] <andicat> there were a lot of industry folks there
[3/2/2006 3:24 PM] <_sj_> andi: yes
[3/2/2006 3:24 PM] <GerardM> how about Tim Oreilly ?
[3/2/2006 3:24 PM] <reagleBRKLN> will do so now -- memory not so good
[3/2/2006 3:24 PM] <brassratgirl> Ok, so one question is, while we're throwing around names, what are we going for with these speakers?
[3/2/2006 3:25 PM] <brassratgirl> Star power, that will draw lots of people in? Big-picture discussions? Useful help on specific things for community members?
[3/2/2006 3:25 PM] <Angela> I'm not convinced people at Wikimania would be that interested in listening to talks about commercial wiki hosting companies. It doesn't really fit in with what Wikimedia's doing
[3/2/2006 3:25 PM] <andicat> For keynotes, bog names who can talk about big ideas
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <andicat> err BIG names.
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <GerardM> I think the semantic web is more interesting
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <_sj_> angela: how about discussions about different approaches to the wiki concept?
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <Angela> I don't think there will be problems getting people to attend, so a focus on drawing people in shouldn't be the main priority
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <GerardM> http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Semantic_Wiki
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <Angela> _sj_: yes, that would be ok I guess
[3/2/2006 3:26 PM] <_sj_> confluence is interesting because their impression of what wikis are about/for is quite different.
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <brassratgirl> for projects/community, are we interested in hearing back from the community projects as well?
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <andicat> for social science track: what happens when wiki is enacted in different contexts? enter: corporation/education/nonprofit
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <reagleBRKLN> What would be very interesting would be to have people that know very little about Wikis, but a lot about encyclopedias. I certainly have these folks in my bibliography, but wouldn't even know how to contact them.
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <Angela> _sj_: it might work if it's a panel, not presentations, to avoid them just doing a pitch about their own company
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <andicat> reagle: i agree!
[3/2/2006 3:27 PM] <_sj_> the nice thing about having people who are well-known in their field is that -- in addition to having speaking experience -- they also know everyone else; so you can get things done when you have the right combination of them in person.
[3/2/2006 3:28 PM] <brassratgirl> reagle, agreed ..
[3/2/2006 3:28 PM] <brassratgirl> put their names down, we can figure out how to contact them
[3/2/2006 3:28 PM] <GerardM> The people from Surfnet ARE experienced speakers
[3/2/2006 3:28 PM] <brassratgirl> I was trying to figure out who knows a lot about encyclopedias, and was coming up short..
[3/2/2006 3:28 PM] <reagleBRKLN> that'd be Stockwell, Yeo, Winchester, and McArthur (folks mentioned the pop press guy Jacobs already)
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <reagleBRKLN> brassratgirl: see bib in http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/refs/4-themes.html
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> reagleBRKLN: send me full names pls
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> oh, ok
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> :) I will apply librarian-fu and see if we can get anywhere with them
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <_sj_> brg: diversity of viewpoints, for some of the practical and societal issues
[3/2/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> yes
[3/2/2006 3:30 PM] <brassratgirl> but that may or may not be the same thing as geographical/gender diversity, which we were also talking about
[3/2/2006 3:30 PM] <_sj_> brg: diversity of background, for each theme; reaching out to more than lawyers and law-activists for input on copyright (creators!); and more than just technologists for infrastructure/software (interface, usability)
[3/2/2006 3:30 PM] <andicat> my take is... with intellectual diversity, comes other diversity
[3/2/2006 3:31 PM] <brassratgirl> andicat: I tend to agree...
[3/2/2006 3:31 PM] <andicat> now, geographic is hard.
[3/2/2006 3:31 PM] <andicat> that's economics and another matter
[3/2/2006 3:31 PM] <Angela> it might be worth looking at the speakers' wiki to get some more diversity. https://www.socialtext.net/speakers/index.cgi
[3/2/2006 3:32 PM] <brassratgirl> My sense is everyone would like to have speakers from world-wide projects ..
[3/2/2006 3:32 PM] <_sj_> angela: cool
[3/2/2006 3:32 PM] <reagleBRKLN> other people might be those concerned with the social construction of knowledge (i.e., those that do postmodern type studies of science) I am thinking of Bowker and star
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> angela: thanks for link, that looks excellent
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> reagle: mmm, postmodern studies :)
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <Amgine> agenda?
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> so how many speakers do we want to try and pull together?
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: this is it, for this week ..
[3/2/2006 3:34 PM] <GerardM> I would think that there are MANY really relevant people in our own ranks .. would that not make as much sense ?
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <brassratgirl> though we could talk about ongoing scheduling, too
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <Amgine> # of stages * 2 * days, plus opening and closing keynotes.
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <brassratgirl> GerardM: that's a good question, how many internal vs external speakers
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <brassratgirl> may vary per track
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: so, I did the math for that..
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <andicat> and are accepted papers going to give presentations?
[3/2/2006 3:35 PM] <andicat> how many slots are there to fill?
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <_sj_> Planning for around 8-9 hours of content per theme; we should leave more than half to public submissions.
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> and proposing 30 minute sessions (20 mins to talk, 10 mins for q & a) ..
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> there was, er, what sj said :)
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <andicat> :-)
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> basically, I tentatively split the schedule up into 1.5 hour blocks
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <_sj_> of course, some excellent speakers will be glad to send submissions.
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <Amgine> How many themese are there officially?
[3/2/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> and we can do what we wish with those blocks...
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <GerardM> I would like to have a talk by Henna about the vandal fighting software she is developing
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <brassratgirl> either 2-3 presentations, or a single keynote, or a workshop...
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <_sj_> gerard: or a vandal-fighting software panel
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <brassratgirl> amgine: 5
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <_sj_> since there are other suggestions of smae
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <GerardM> It will include localisations
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <Amgine> 45 hours of content, 90 speakers total.
[3/2/2006 3:37 PM] <_sj_> gerard: cool. she should definitely write it up
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> but the tracks won't nec. be equal, of course ..
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <GerardM> I am already working on it with her
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> there may be more social science than law, or the other way around.. and we can sort that out later
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <_sj_> some of these will be longer blocks, not half-hour ones.
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> there's also a little bit of give, as we have more rooms to use if need be
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <_sj_> tutorials and workshops, for instance.
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <Amgine> Do we have stages for these events?
[3/2/2006 3:38 PM] <_sj_> this is something we need to focus on this month; we need to know what workshops we will have in advance of selecting our final speaker lists
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <_sj_> stages?
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <Amgine> This will clearly determine the amount of time we have for presentations.
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <Amgine> Places.
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <brassratgirl> and that's leaving room for 3 plenaries, lunch, etc.
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <andicat> gotta run... talk to you all later
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: yes
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <brassratgirl> bye andicat!
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <brassratgirl> see you this weekend
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <_sj_> yep. later, andi...
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <--| andicat has left #wikimania
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <Amgine> bye andicat
[3/2/2006 3:39 PM] <Amgine> Okay, how many main podium places do you have?
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <brassratgirl> 8-9 hours is a little over, actually ..
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <brassratgirl> we have a handful of big rooms
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <brassratgirl> for plenaries ..
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <Amgine> I need a pretty strict number for big rooms.
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <Amgine> 3? 5?
[3/2/2006 3:40 PM] <brassratgirl> 3 main ones
[3/2/2006 3:41 PM] <Amgine> How many hours will the show go on?
[3/2/2006 3:41 PM] <brassratgirl> but the rooms for concurrent presentations are pretty sizable
[3/2/2006 3:41 PM] <Amgine> daily?
[3/2/2006 3:41 PM] <brassratgirl> tbd. what do you all think?
[3/2/2006 3:41 PM] <Amgine> Usually 10 hours, with 1-2 break over lunch.
[3/2/2006 3:42 PM] <GerardM> how many people in the main rooms ?
[3/2/2006 3:42 PM] <brassratgirl> shoot. _sj_, do you know where I put the list of rooms onwiki?
[3/2/2006 3:42 PM] *brassratgirl is looking
[3/2/2006 3:42 PM] <Amgine> Doesn't matter, we're talking about the number of presentations GerardM
[3/2/2006 3:42 PM] <_sj_> we had one under venue; the details aren't key here tho'
[3/2/2006 3:43 PM] <brassratgirl> GerardM: the big rooms were several hundred people each; the others were around 100
[3/2/2006 3:43 PM] <Amgine> If you have 3 podiums, 8 hours per day, 3 days, you have 72 hours available stage time, 144 presentations.
[3/2/2006 3:43 PM] <GerardM> right thanks
[3/2/2006 3:43 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: there's not quite that much time..
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <brassratgirl> as we were talking about incorporating fairly long breaks and lunches
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <asw> we might have four podiums?
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <asw> sam?
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <brassratgirl> to give people a chance to mingle, which is part of the point of this whole exercise
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <_sj_> asw: right.
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <GerardM> absolutely
[3/2/2006 3:44 PM] <Amgine> Yes. But being geeks they may also be interested in running later in the day, so the net will still be 144 presentations.
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <brassratgirl> Angela: last year people wanted a little more break time, is that true?
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <asw> Amgine - sounds right to me.
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: the presentations could be either short presentations, or long workshops, though..
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <Angela> yes
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <asw> brassratgirl - should definitely do lots of breaks but with 4 tracks ... that's a lot of time over three days.
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <_sj_> brg: yes, you're right; since we're only using the largest rooms when called for; so ~7 hrs per theme?
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <asw> tracks = separate rooms not our "tracks = themes".
[3/2/2006 3:45 PM] <brassratgirl> the way I did it - not set in stone - 7 hours per day
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <brassratgirl> for all 5 tracks
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <Amgine> <nod> I would suggest presenters be limited to 15 minutes talk, 10 Q&A btw.
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <brassratgirl> = 21 half hour blocks *per theme*
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <_sj_> right now the plan is to include more break time.
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <Amgine> That gives 5 minutes for introductions, technical setup.
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <asw> I have to admit I can't visualize it just talking about it.
[3/2/2006 3:46 PM] <GerardM> Amgine some subject cannot be told in 15 minutes
[3/2/2006 3:47 PM] <Amgine> GerardM: 200-400 wpm speaking speed (should be close to 250)
[3/2/2006 3:47 PM] <Amgine> That's 3750 words per presentation.
[3/2/2006 3:47 PM] <GerardM> yeah right
[3/2/2006 3:47 PM] <Amgine> That's a goodly amount.
[3/2/2006 3:48 PM] <Amgine> Most people will talk too fast, and end up with lots of Q&A time.
[3/2/2006 3:48 PM] <GerardM> that is if you talk all the time and that is if you do not give the audiene time to think
[3/2/2006 3:48 PM] <asw> I've given/heard lots of talks and 25-30min is a good ammount of time. Lightning talks can be a lot less and a few key notes could be more.
[3/2/2006 3:48 PM] <asw> Amgine - maybe some talks are fine with only 5 mins question answer?
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <reagleBRKLN> this is probably not useful, but have people ever considered lightning talks from our own ranks?
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <asw> in big rooms it's pretty hard.
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <Angela> the keynotes were too long last year. I don't think anyone should go over an hour (incl questions)
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <Amgine> <nod> Often, asw.
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> angela: sounds good to me. how did people feel about the larger panels?
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <Amgine> Agree, Angela
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> those can be hard to fit into an hour.
[3/2/2006 3:49 PM] <Angela> I don't remember any complaints about the large panels
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <_sj_> so we could do 1.5 hrs for workshops and panels, depending on their size
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> reagleBRKLN, I really like the idea of lightning talks
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <asw> Angela - maybe longish hour+ talks shoudl be reserved for important panels.
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> I also like the idea of encouraging people to submit posters
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <_sj_> we thought about having more formalized lightning talks last year
[3/2/2006 3:50 PM] <_sj_> but ended up just doing 10min + Q&A as the shortest sessions
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <GerardM> Do you mean large pieces of paper; posters ?
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <Amgine> Posters are often better for projects looking to get the word out; they can spend time one-on-one.
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <asw> _sj_ soufron suggested a licensing panel with eben/larry/others i think it would be great!
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <asw> that could be longer and people would enjoy it (i'm guessing.)
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <Amgine> That could last a day or more...
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <brassratgirl> GerardM: yes
[3/2/2006 3:51 PM] <_sj_> We could a) have a separate submission deadline for lightning talks (from people who are already planning on coming, say), or b) reply to some attendees who submitted full papers asking them to give lightning talks instead
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <brassratgirl> with a set aside time for people to mill around & look at them
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] * asw says "yes" to lightning talks
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <asw> :)
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <Angela> do we need submissions for lightning talks?
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <Angela> couldn't they be arranged at the event?
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <asw> maybe if your submission is not accepted for a full talk?
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <GerardM> :)
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <GerardM> that could be interesting
[3/2/2006 3:52 PM] <brassratgirl> Angela: a listing would be nice, just so attendees know who they want to go see
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <brassratgirl> We could also have an ongoing, informal signup..
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <GerardM> yes but not having listings makes it adventerous
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <asw> Angela, brassratgirl - i had vaguely envisioned we'd accept abstracts and slot them into long talk / lightning talk /poster
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <_sj_> I would enjoy having some open lightning sessions that people fill the day of
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <Angela> I was thinking of the open space model where this is arranged on the day, and people can then look at the agenda that's just been created and decide what to go to
[3/2/2006 3:53 PM] <Amgine> Where do the BOF talks fit in the list?
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <asw> i think they get extra rooms.
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <Amgine> I like that idea, Angela.
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <asw> they = BOF
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <GerardM> How big would BOF rooms be (audience)
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <_sj_> I would definitely also enjoy lightning sessions that people could write in in advance
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <Amgine> 12-20 probably
[3/2/2006 3:54 PM] <asw> Angela/Amgine - dynamic is good but it's probably nice to have some structure too. So not all of the schedule is decided the day of. :)
[3/2/2006 3:55 PM] <Angela> perhaps have a mix of planned and open sessions for lightening talks then?
[3/2/2006 3:55 PM] <Amgine> <nod> Yes, generic topics based on submissions we have, plus additions at the conference itself
[3/2/2006 3:55 PM] <brassratgirl> asw: agreed
[3/2/2006 3:55 PM] <brassratgirl> and the open-space model also takes some planning.
[3/2/2006 3:56 PM] <_sj_> amgine: BOF talks would be discussions, much longer than lightning talks; they could take place in small rooms we have available, organized on-site, at any time.
[3/2/2006 3:56 PM] <Amgine> <nod> The frat band night model is useful. Multiple locations where people can do lightning talks. But this assumes we have more submissions than we have venues for.
[3/2/2006 3:56 PM] <brassratgirl> hey all
[3/2/2006 3:56 PM] <brassratgirl> I must go in a couple minutes
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> but I'll post notes here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Program/2006-03-2
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> is anyone else logging, in case my connection goes wonky?
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <Amgine> Thanks brassratgirl.
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <Amgine> starting logging.
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] * reagleBRKLN must go too
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <_sj_> that takes a bit of planning; a list of available small rooms, and then a recommendation for how to announce something -- a bulletin board for messages, a publicly-modifiable calendar of bof events (some confs have a wall of pieces of paper stuck up; we could be a bit more organized than that)
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <asw> asw - always logs everything.
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <_sj_> later jr
[3/2/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> ok - mine should be fine, but I'll let you know if it isn't :)
[3/2/2006 3:58 PM] |<-- reagleBRKLN has left freenode ("Using KVIrc 3.0.1.99 'System Virtue'")
[3/2/2006 3:58 PM] <_sj_> last update
[3/2/2006 3:58 PM] <Amgine> <hmph> Can't get this to log.
[3/2/2006 3:58 PM] <_sj_> brion is setting up dns for wikimania2005 and wikimania2006; we should have a site to work on soon.
[3/2/2006 3:59 PM] <asw> Amgine - it will be very sad if we don't get enough submissions. I guess I keep hoping we'll be rejecting 10 to 1 (like Nature et al.)
[3/2/2006 3:59 PM] <asw> i know i know
[3/2/2006 3:59 PM] <brassratgirl> _sj_: sweeet
[3/2/2006 3:59 PM] <_sj_> (ang: a mix of lightning talks would be great)
[3/2/2006 4:00 PM] *brassratgirl will be back in an hour
[3/2/2006 4:00 PM] <Amgine> GerardM: you have 10 submissions planned for your team, correct?
[3/2/2006 4:00 PM] <GerardM> When you reduce talks to lightning talks, you need more ideas
[3/2/2006 4:00 PM] <GerardM> I have 10 things that I would like to see covered yes
[3/2/2006 4:00 PM] <GerardM> they are all over the spectrum though
[3/2/2006 4:01 PM] <GerardM> "Team" sounds great
[3/2/2006 4:01 PM] <Amgine> <nod> That's fine. We need at least that many from wiktionarians anyway.
[3/2/2006 4:01 PM] <GerardM> They are NOT necesarily abour Wiktionary / lexiology / terminology /thesauri
[3/2/2006 4:01 PM] <Amgine> I think it still looks like we will be looking for about 10 podium events.
[3/2/2006 4:02 PM] <Amgine> sorry, 140
[3/2/2006 4:02 PM] <GerardM> the one I already submitted is decidedly not
[3/2/2006 4:02 PM] <Amgine> No, but for most wikimedians if it deals with words or a word-software, it's wiktionary.
[3/2/2006 4:02 PM] <Amgine> With or without the Z
[3/2/2006 4:03 PM] <GerardM> so enyclopedic content is not wordy terminology
[3/2/2006 4:03 PM] <Amgine> <grin>
[3/2/2006 4:04 PM] <Amgine> _sj_: is the arbcom submission from mindspillage?
[3/2/2006 4:04 PM] <Angela> I think raul suggested it
[3/2/2006 4:05 PM] <Amgine> <nod> I'm pushing mindspillage to do a workshop, BOF, about arbcom as well.
[3/2/2006 4:05 PM] <Amgine> Is there anyone else I should be pushing to do submissions?
[3/2/2006 4:05 PM] <GerardM> Oscar did not give his presentation last year .. it would be nice if he is able to this year
[3/2/2006 4:06 PM] <GerardM> It would also be nice if he is there for the arbcom thingie
[3/2/2006 4:06 PM] <Amgine> Oscar...
[3/2/2006 4:06 PM] <Amgine> What was his presentation-not-given-last-year?
[3/2/2006 4:07 PM] <GerardM> I do recall that I wanted to see it :)
[3/2/2006 4:07 PM] * asw thinks: my brain is frazzled. I'm here but barely.
[3/2/2006 4:10 PM] <Amgine> <needs to get caffeine IV drip>
[3/2/2006 4:11 PM] <GerardM> well here it is 01:10 .. what is more on the agenda ?
[3/2/2006 4:12 PM] <asw> Amgine : on my second "large soy latte" ...
[3/2/2006 4:12 PM] <_sj_> that does it for the meeting.
[3/2/2006 4:12 PM] <_sj_> please keep adding great ideas for speakers and panels to the program ideas page
[3/2/2006 4:12 PM] <_sj_> asw: scary
[3/2/2006 4:12 PM] <_sj_> gerard: thanks for staying up
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <GerardM> Ok. question can I read the proposals that have been submitted ?
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <_sj_> oscar was to present on art and beauty
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <_sj_> and yes, he should definitely submit that presentation again
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <Angela> GerardM: yes, but please don't reply to people before they've been discussed
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <GerardM> No THAT is not something that I should do
[3/2/2006 4:13 PM] <GerardM> and WILL do
[3/2/2006 4:14 PM] <Angela> GerardM: you need to find someone who can give you an account on indico. I'd have no idea how to do that, or even whether I can