Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:12:36 -0400 | From | Konstantin Ryabitsev <> | Subject | Re: Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off |
| |
(Trimming the huge CC list)
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:39:49PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > The topic of how to best organize hybrid events to maximize > inclusiveness for remote participants is more interesting to me. LPC did > an amazing job last year with the fully remote setup, but a hybrid setup > brings new challenges. One issue I've previously experienced in hybrid > setups, especially for brainstorming-type discussions, was that on-site > attendees can very quickly break out conversations in small groups (it's > an issue for fully on-site events too).
As a (high-functioning) introvert, I'd say that a lot of it depends not so much on the on-site/off-site nature of participation, but on individual communication preferences. I've presented quite a bit at conferences, and, to me, "brainstorming-type discussions" never really happen post-presentation, largely because being in a spotlight makes me uncomfortable and I generally try to slink away.
I suggest that something that would help is providing information on where to ask questions in an informal setting. For example, add the following on the last slide of your presentation:
Thank you!
Join the discussion:
1. Mailing list: foo@lists.example.com 2. IRC: #foochan on exampleirc.com 3. Matrix: #foochan:example.com 4. My email: foo@example.com
This gives enough options for folks to ask questions whether they are in the real-life audience or attending online. Listing both your individual email and a group chat option will help bridge many cultural divides -- some people will feel intimidated asking a question directly (especially if you are a luminary in your field) and will prefer to address a group. Others will feel intimidated addressing a group (what if my question is stupid) and will prefer to address you directly.
> Session leads should be aware of the need to ensure even more than usual > that all speakers use microphones. I don't think we need to go as far as > specific training on these topics, but emphasizing the importance of > moderation would be useful in my opinion.
I think with most sessions being recorded, people are already well conditioned to use microphones. I try to at least always repeat the question being asked if I notice that the person asking it isn't using a mic.
> There will always be more informal discussions between on-site participants. > After all, this is one of the benefits of conferences, by being all together > we can easily organize ad-hoc discussions. This is traditionally done by > finding a not too noisy corner in the conference center, would it be useful > to have more break-out rooms with A/V equipment than usual ?
I'm generally of the opinion that we should split conferences from hackathons, anyway.
- conferences are great for finding about cool new things happening in your field, and work great online where there is no limit on how many people can join the stream; if the presentation is not what you thought it was going to be, switching to a different video stream is dramatically cheaper than getting out of the dark room to find a different presentation. - hackathons are great for getting things done and meeting up with folks you rarely get to see in real life -- and they work well as on-site, multi-site or hybrid events.
For example, the maintainer summit is a "hackathon", even if there is no actual code hacking done. The thing being hackathoned is the development process itself and general direction of things. The LinuxCon is for sure a conference and generally has little tangible value other than a pretext to get your employer to pay for the trip. :)
So, perhaps more frequent but smaller events around narrower topics as opposed to huge colocated events? I do appreciate that this is more difficult for organizers, but perhaps it would result in more tangible benefits?
-K
| |