Feedback from day two: was mostly procedural (or what one delegate called ‘hygiene’ issues):
The goldfish bowl approach to debate?
Pro votes: 2. Anti votes: 1 Pro points: you know where the debate is coming from. Anti points: It’s against the spirit of an unconference; makes it hard to contribute; in principle you can signal that you want to take part or step out, but can you, actually?
Chatham House Rules?
Pro points: creates a safe space, particularly for civil servants. Anti points: it’s not open, is it? A blanket approach makes it hard to capture everything that happens, tweet it to people who can’t be at the event, and put people in touch with each other. Perhaps: each session should establish its own rules, or people should wear badges showing whether they want to be identified or not…
Can future events do more and talk less? Perhaps: the skills swap needs more visibility and promotion, or there could be an education stream with tutorials…. Could future events do more to promote stories and what works? And could they involve community groups with problems to solve? Perhaps: that would be an interesting idea to explore…
Open Data Camp: should it be called something else? Not if you’re going to get sponsorship, frankly…. And could there be more information for first timers about getting to the event, parking, eating and so? Perhaps: although it is all on the website, the website also needs more visibility and promotion… and don’t forget, there’s a great blog with lots of information in the posts and artist capture as well!
The Derby Silk Mill was a popular suggestion – as was a return right here to the Watershed.
And thus ends ODC 3. Well, apart from the drinking and cake…
— Angharad Stone (@AngharadStone) May 15, 2016