This page is for miscellaneous ideas to try out at pyTexas. Actual discussion is on the email list texas@python.org.
For concrete plans, see Schedule2009.
Here's how it works. Tape out a line the length of the room. One end is "strongly agree", the other is "strongly disagree". The facilitator then reads a question, and everyone moves to the place on the line that represents their answer. Some of the questions could be:
* the Python language is changing too fast * there should be fewer web frameworks * ???
Everyone stands for a bit while the facilitator leads a discussion. In the discussion it's easy to represent both sides, because you can ask people at either end to explain their position, and you can also ask people in the middle.
Interesting. Let's do this in the atrium area at the end of the unconference. We can photograph each anthrospectrograph from the second floor and compile the results on the web site. Oh now that's geeky! -RKF
Speedgeeking is like lightning talks in parallel. You round up N speakers, who will have 4 minutes for their talk; each speaker is placed at a station. The audience is divided into N groups, and the groups rotate around the room so that they see all the talks; when the four minutes are up, they must move on. Speakers therefore deliver their talk N times.
I don't know. Sounds like a drinking game to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that! -RKF
I'd prefer regular lightning talks so I don't have to repeat myself. -Dean
Martin Taylor said:
These "unconferences" sound very much like the Austin Workshop on Test Automation (AWTA) conferences that I have attended: http://awta.wikispaces.com/. The AWTA model is based on a process developed by Cem Kaner and Brian Lawrence for another workshop, the Los Altos Workshop on Software Testing (LAWST): http://www.kaner.com/lawst.htm. Some of the LAWST approaches to presentations and discussions were also used at the first Conference of the Association for Software Testing (CAST) last summer in Indianapolis (http://www.associationforsoftwaretesting.org/conference/cast2006/index.html). Organizers and attendees of PyCamp (or whatever name gets picked) might take a look at the LAWST model for futher ideas on user-driven conferences. I particularly like their way of moderating the discussion following a presentation as it allows for in depth Q&A and discussion that goes where the attendees choose and for how long they choose.
Robin Friedrich replies:
This does have some very good approaches. I do want to make sure we provide sufficient time for post presentation discussions. The Pycons are scheduled so tightly with little time for followups there's a bit of an inhibitor. On the other hand I see cases where people want to pursue topics beyond the interest level of the audience. I suggest having reserved block time for followup discussions for topics that would have blown the session schedule. The session facilitator is going to have to make the call on time. We definitely don't want to have people scheduled to talk find that their time slot's been cut into.
Please help us tailor the talks and sprints to your interests. Below you can list subjects that interest you or attach your name to any subjects that are already there.