Talk:Unconference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FooCamp imo is not an Unconference. The "audience" is comprised of a selected body of participants who adhere to certain criteria. See Tim O'Reilly's description of the selection process at http://gigaom.com/2005/08/16/foocampfighting/#comment-8833 -- martind 217.83.125.152 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disconnect between deeds and words.

Look at the definition of what an "unconference" is, at the head of the article: ...a conference where the content of the meeting is driven and created by the participants rather than by a single organizer.

FOO Camp is an invitation-only event. Someone issues those invitations. That someone would be a single organizer. Thus, FOO Camp is not an unconference -- the content is pre-determined, however implicitly, through O'Reilly, in the process of whom to invite or not invite.

Any putative dispute between O'Reilly and Winer isn't relevant. Any invitation-only event, regardless of vendor or sponsor, falls outside the definition. If FOO Camp was open to the public, and its content set solely by the participants who happened to show up, it would fall into the definition. I particularly note that O'Reilly itself does not use the term "unconference" in its own material about FOO Camp ( see http://wiki.oreillynet.com/foocamp05/index.cgi , the most recent example).

Hijacking an article for language better suited to a marketing brochure and hype for a particular vendor (seemingly against that vendor's wishes) doesn't do a general reader any good. The material about FOO Camp and "Open Space Technology" almost certainly belongs in the existing articles about those two terms, and not cluttering up this specific article.

Hal 21:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the description of Foo Camp to outline some of the controversy surrounding the event. Still not perfect, but better than before. -- martind 84.190.184.108 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the primary and substative definition of "unconference" is the participant-driven nature. What does invite-only have to do with that, when the participants still define what is discussed? --Gstein 06:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gstein: somewhat true, the "participant-driven nature" is part of FooCamp. But the core idea behind unconferences, it seems, is to remove barriers of entry for all participants. That's what makes it such a powerful concept; that the discussion is more likely to take a new paths, because suddenly "new" people can become part of the discussion. In my interpretation of the unconference concept in its "pure" form, the only barrier of entry should be the motivation of potential participants, not an arbitrary and external selection process. (But please post if your opinions on this differ!) -- martind 217.83.103.41 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point of view would label FOSDEM and FISL as "unconferences" simply because those are open to all comers (free of charge). But that is *totally* wrong. Those are conferences pure and simple: prepared talks, discussion panels, tutorials, ... the whole works. The defining factor of an "unconference" is removing all those historical notions -- put the agenda and format in the hands of the participants. --Gstein 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many examples

There are too many links in the examples section. It seems that every *Camp has got a link down there. I suggest keeping only a few popular ones, maybe BarCamp and a couple others. Also, since FOO Camp is not an unconference, it should be taken out of the examples section. --Siddhi 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddhi (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Since there have been no objections, I'm going ahead with the edit --Siddhi 05:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)