Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>
> Mostly, I think there's a usefulness to panels, but I think that a
strong
> need exists mostly for what someone feels the burning desire to teach,
> rather than thinking up a subject and searching for panelists. An
exception
> to this is the "Future of Convergence" which may actually benefit from
> continued recurrence, a very large space, and a timing point midway
through
> the event.
I agree, the panels I've attended worked because the panelists really
wanted to share what they knew about the topic and were enthusiastic
about it. I don't think coming up with panel subjects or trying to force
a specific minimum number of panels is needed from the committee or
would work well. A call for interest in running a panel, then helping
schedule rooms and audio equipment if anyone responds would most likely
be the extent of assistance needed.
The "Future of Convergence" thing is an obviously different animal. I
can see where it would be useful to get input each year, and talking to
people in person proved to go a long way towards seeing the tone meant
when someone makes a statement, and see the determination and enthusiasm
everyone had for Convergence. The trick in making it useful as a yearly
event will be getting past the first 1.5 hours or so of what was gone
over in this years panel and moving on to new input and discussion. If
every year a majority of the panel is spent going over "it's a.g's
party" "can't we sup****t both views" "it's growing" "we need to fix
this" "we're all interested in seeing this succeed" "the internet's
changed" "lets do this again next year" "let's go get a drink", it'll
quickly lose people's interest and won't serve its purpose. If we can
speed the basics and extend the time spent getting into new discussion,
and keep things civil like this past panel, I think it'd be a useful
tool to keep the fires stoked.
--
~Dizzy, All IMHO as part of discussion, jump in and add folks :)
|
