Wineconf thoughts for next year
Hi folks, I persist in thinking that it's useful to write down thoughts on Wineconf to remember for next year, so that we can perhaps have a better event the next year. Sadly, I do not think there is much chance that we will have a better event next year; I cannot imagine finding more gracious hosts, a nicer venue, or better weather than we had this weekend. I did not talk to anyone that didn't think that this was a fantastic event, and I think we are all in shock at how helpful the Fachschaft Elektrotechnik were, and how generous WRS was. However, I want to correct an oversight. I was glad we were able to publicly thank our hosts, but there are a few people from our own community that deserve a round of virtual applause as well. Without Brian, I don't think we would have had Wineconf; he spurred us to thinking of it, pulled us together, and juggled the thorny issue of the agenda quite well. Further, several folks from Germany really helped out as well. David Gümbel, Andreas Mohr, Michael Stefaniuc, (and others I've forgotten) were extremely helpful to us all. You all certainly helped this American feel very welcome and at home. So thank you all. I did want to file a few practical thoughts away: First, I thought we did audio and video just right this year; we made an honest attempt at it, but it didn't interfere with the conference at all. However, I think we need to recognize that we Wine hackers are badly addicted to Internet access, and I think we need to set aside a formal time on day 1 to make sure that all access is good. We did have mounting frustrations over the connectivity, only getting it all ironed out midway through day two. I found myself being increasingly distracted by the problems until we finally ironed it out. (There were counter proposals on the train to eliminate internet access so that folks would focus on the talks; I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it's an interesting point). We also seem to crave massive amounts of power; we should probably sponsor a box of power strips for our host next year. Brian was feeling that we might have done better with a slightly lighter schedule, but others didn't seem to feel that so strongly, so I'm ambivalent. But the healthy and flexible breaks were once again invaluable. At any rate, it was great to see you all. I look forward to planning Wine 1.0 at Huw's house next year <grin>. Thanks again to everyone that helped bring off a brilliant Wineconf! Cheers, Jeremy
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:11:24PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
However, I think we need to recognize that we Wine hackers are badly addicted to Internet access, and I think we need to set aside a formal time on day 1 to make sure that all access is good. We did have mounting frustrations over the connectivity, only getting it all ironed out midway through day two. I found myself being increasingly distracted by the problems until we finally ironed it out.
I agree that most of us are badly addicted to Internet. For this reason, I think it is counterproductive that we do have access during talks. There is very little reason to have it, it would be like providing internet access at the Opera :) [1] It has a negative impact on the general 'feel' of the audience, it is distracting and uninviting to the speakers. After not seen each other for a year, and spending time, energy and money to attend, we can't do for a *few* hours without internet access? Are we that bad? And if we are, do we really need to encourage it? If the talks are so boring, why expand all these resources to meet in the first place? I think it is essential to have Internet access, but *outside* the conference. This way people can get their email done, maybe code up a patch, etc after the talks. Instead, we had the reverse situation: no Internet access outside the conference, but we did get it during the talks. And what did we do? Check email, write patches, etc. when we should have been listening. For this reason, the second day we had a much less focused audience. And yes, I can see Juan's point that IRC is good. If that's the case, we can have a network without the Internet. But with all the good, long breaks we had in between, can't we focus for 1h at a time? -- Dimi. [1] No, we are not as good as Opera singers, but we try our best ;)
I think it is essential to have Internet access, but *outside* the conference. This way people can get their email done, maybe code up a patch, etc after the talks.
A gang of us were talking about this the other night, and I actually think that the consensus agreement was with you, Dimi. The thinking is to accomplish two things: 1. No internet in the meeting rooms 2. Internet readily available right there (next room) 3. A structure that makes being in the room optional (so no one is hurt if you are checking email). The thought was maybe to try for more rooms or more spaces within a large room, and then have 'discussion groups', that people can flow in and out of, rather than the more formal 'lecture style' we ended up with. (Or perhaps a bit of a balance in that). Cheers, Jeremy
Jeremy White wrote:
The thinking is to accomplish two things: 1. No internet in the meeting rooms 2. Internet readily available right there (next room) 3. A structure that makes being in the room optional (so no one is hurt if you are checking email).
For one thing, if you don't have to climb all over other people in order to get out....
The thought was maybe to try for more rooms or more spaces within a large room, and then have 'discussion groups', that people can flow in and out of, rather than the more formal 'lecture style' we ended up with. (Or perhaps a bit of a balance in that).
I think the lectures are important. We have had lots of discussions anyways, which was a direct result of the number of recesses (which is a good thing). I think occasional lectures are a good thing, as they give us something to discuss....
Cheers,
Jeremy
Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
Hi, On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:00:23PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
For one thing, if you don't have to climb all over other people in order to get out.... Indeed, that's the big issue about such a lecture hall... (plus, this environment was near-fatal on Jon's notebook ;-\)
I think the lectures are important. We have had lots of discussions anyways, which was a direct result of the number of recesses (which is a good thing). I think occasional lectures are a good thing, as they give us something to discuss.... I'm not so sure about lectures. I have to admit that I wasn't too interested in several lectures (often due to being less involved with Wine now, but sometimes due to knowing that subject anyway - see assembler lecture), so it might have been more useful if there had been a way to find people interested in the areas I'm interested in and discuss some things with them separately (in separate interest/discussion groups).
This would have meant having people fill out their interest areas at the beginning of wineconf, but I'm not sure whether that is practical. Due to having less interest in several presentations and having a wireless issue (my driver was severely broken due to recent contributions which I didn't have the time to test fully) I was spending more time on the internet (or at least trying hard to ;-) than on presentations. Andreas Mohr
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:27:19PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:00:23PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
For one thing, if you don't have to climb all over other people in order to get out.... Indeed, that's the big issue about such a lecture hall... (plus, this environment was near-fatal on Jon's notebook ;-\)
I think the lectures are important. We have had lots of discussions anyways, which was a direct result of the number of recesses (which is a good thing). I think occasional lectures are a good thing, as they give us something to discuss.... I'm not so sure about lectures. I have to admit that I wasn't too interested in several lectures (often due to being less involved with Wine now, but sometimes due to knowing that subject anyway - see assembler lecture), so it might have been more useful if there had been a way to find people interested in the areas I'm interested in and discuss some things with them separately (in separate interest/discussion groups).
Other conferences use Birds of a Feather break-out sessions. Not sure if for the small number of wine developers this is feasible. Ciao, Marcus
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:33:23AM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
The thought was maybe to try for more rooms or more spaces within a large room, and then have 'discussion groups', that people can flow in and out of, rather than the more formal 'lecture style' we ended up with. (Or perhaps a bit of a balance in that).
Certainly a balance would be best IMO. Some presentations fit the lecture style better than the other. Just giving up completely on the formal 'lecture style' would be too much. A bit of formality doesn't hurt, it can give structure and help people focus on other areas. I'm sure we can use our good judgment to correctly designate a presentation as either a lecture or a Birds of a Feather session. -- Dimi.
participants (5)
-
Andreas Mohr -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Jeremy White -
Marcus Meissner -
Shachar Shemesh