Some Thoughts on Un-Conferences

I do like Dave Winer's riff on un-conferences, and Stowe adds some excellent perspective in his post below. A few additional thoughts:

. Unconferences work best when attendees buy into the agenda, and when they can be thoughtful about the topic at hand. But without that contract, people thinking they're attending a traditional conference may want to sit and be quiet on a topic, and to simply be in learn mode. That's especially true for neophytes, or in emerging markets (where most are neophytes). And unconferences may not work as well when some segment of attendees simply want a core dump on "the answer," or at least a tutorial on the basics.

. Not everyone in the room may have that much to contribute to the topic. Last September, I attended a Renaissance Weekend conference in Monterey, Calif. Though many may not think of it as an unconference, it certainly is broadly inclusive of all the attendees as speakers, often in multiple panels. It was an enjoyable group of people, and I heard some interesting perspectives. But one "panel" consisted of "40 people under 40" (a list that rather mistakenly included me). I'd say the signal to noise ratio was about 25%, which seemed like a relatively low result for two hours' investment. (Or, maybe I should just chill out.)

. I'm a big fan of "alternating rhythms" in events, where the context continually shifts from single speakers to audience-driven sessions to interesting panels. Unconferences shouldn't follow just the open-ended format described in Dave's post (not that he's suggesting that).

. It'd be great if we could find a label without "un-" in front of it, such as social conferences, or interactive events. (Just not "Conference 2.0." Please.)

. Why not marry social software and social conferences? I'd like to see the result of some social software layer on top of the attendee set, where attendees each tag the speakers they think have the most interesting things to say on a range of subjects. (And, of course, the attendees generate the subjects themselves, as well.) Attendees need to go to the sessions they're tagged for, since they've essentially been nominated to contribute. They can nominate themselves, as well, but external validation from other attendees would certainly be a plus. There would probably need to be "anchor" speakers to serve as the lightning rods for others to sign up. But this approach would ensure strong buy-in from attendees, since it would allow them to help craft some of the sessions even before they arrived.

gB