The tough parts of the bold step of holding an Open Space ? First, the central question that forms the core of the invitation … that question is what gives structure and focus to an Open Space. The second challenge might be the right facility.

The interesting possibility is what the “results” of a GDX Open Space would be over the following year, 2 years, 3 years and so on.

Chris, as a former Gnomedex’r, (absent the last two years – Did you miss me?) I agree with Scoble that it’s been my opinion that Gnomedex has moved away from its grassroots.

What is this grassroots about which I speak? Perhaps a list is easier …

* Gnomedex appealed to me because it covered cutting edge technologies that other conferences didn’t cover because they were too “early” to even be on their early adopter radar.

* The speakers at Gnomedex seemed relevant to what was going on at the time and focused on technology more for its application than just how to “monetize” its use. Some of us “Geeks” just wanted to changes peoples consciousness through technology vs. just trying to make dollars.

* Everyone was approachable. As Gnomedex has gotten bigger and bigger, this has just not been the case. There is a considerable air among some G’dexers that feel they are of greater importance than some of the other attendees thus I believe inhibiting the “sharing of ideas” format that G’dex was founded on.

Once these aspects began to change, I think I found myself not finding the value that I once did in the conference.

Thanks for the opportunity to allow me to voice my concerns.

“We live in a hyper-sensitive world, and I hope Gnomedex can remain an oasis of intellectual honesty where agendas and clarity are openly questioned without the thought police labeling those that question things as brutes.”

Amen.

Whatever happened to good old politeness, too?

This was my second Gnomedex. I came expecting to spend the weekend reconnecting with a lot of friends, seeing some interesting presentations (including a few that might be announcements/newsworthy) and have a great time in Seattle.

I ended up having a very professionally useful conference (somehow doing bizdev for an ad network is not as difficult as I thought it might be – something about helping people make money I suspect). I indeed also had a great time in Seattle, had great meals and met many really amazing people.

All that said, I was very disappointed in this year’s speakers. In conversations I had at and around Gnomedex the rough consensus was that 1/3 of the speakers were kooks and aweful, 1/3 were okay, and 1/3 were good (Guy was perhaps great – but gave a speech many had seen many times before).

But I think the opening and the closing speakers started and ended on a bad note – and that many other speakers in various small ways showed a mismatch with the audience (I know Michael who spoke on Open Money in other contexts but did find his closing requests for funding a bit off putting along with how he handled a few questions).

One small bit of advice which I think though seemingly small was a big part of the change in feel this year.

Last year there were short presentations BETWEEN sessions (from Make magazine etc). At many other conferences these short between session presentations (videos, music etc) give people some mental space. For MeshForum I call these “Interstitials” and generally program artists and others to give short presentations/demos (in many ways much like the ignite talks – which was I think one of the standout moments).

Also there was a lack of cohesion between the speakers – a wide range of formats (one speaker, two speakers, lots of speakers for short periods) and not much of an overarching theme connecting the speakers and telling a story. This is hard, but I think a good flow to the speakers could have really helped.

And another small item – not certain this was the case, but this year it felt like the lighting in the audience was darker than in years past – for me at least this drained a bit of my energy while sitting in the audience (you’ll note in contrast to last year, I asked many fewer questions – and most questions were asked by folks in the most well lit/near the stage parts of the space.

I would suggest that you take a bit of a cue from SXSW – let people start to submit speakers – but also be proactive in asking for speakers – and frame those talks in some manner.

But in addition to speakers – I would look into getting interviewers. I’d suggest that probably almost all of the speakers this year (perhaps not the ignite folks whose talks were very concise and focused) could have benefited from a truly great interviewer asking them questions on stage – and then supplemented quickly with questions from the audience.

My suggestion would be:

- have the interviewer give a short context setting introduction of a speaker (but not a 30 second one, possibly a 4-5 minute intro w/slides)

- have the interviewer ask a few questions or one main one that leads into a solid but short presentation by the speaker (5-10 minutes probably – ala the ignite talks). This should probably set the stage for a viewpoint the speaker holds – something they are passionate about and working on (I personally don’t mind hearing about companies – but prefer to also get context)

- then some follow up questions from the interviewer – say 10-15 mins (so this is the first 30 mins or so)

- then for the remaining 20 mins or so, open up to a lot of questions from the audience (and ideally find a useful way to get some from IRC/twitter/backchannels as well)

The interviewer should probably have access to a computer on stage – so they might expand on an audience member’s question – inserting additional points from the IRC for example. Ideally as well it might be possible for people in the audience to also add to a question so that the speaker then addresses more folk’s questions/issues/thoughts

A key question to keep in mind in all of this is “what is the goal of the presentations?”

- spark discussions?

- capture and document a thesis/experience? (and share that with the attendees and through them the world)

- make news/announcements (launch a new product, make a political point etc)

- move the “blogosphere” forward on a given issue [I’d personally recommend against this last point – especially since there is by no means only one “blogosphere” and though Gnomedex is great, it doesn’t actually have everyone important on any given issue in attendance. That said, a session could certainly be scheduled with the intention of raising an issue and giving it a higher profile – along with one or more approaches to dealing with it (privacy vs. live streaming for example could have been one this year – i.e. disclosures, releases, commercial use, archives etc)

Hope this is helpful. Getting speakers and scheduling them in a balanced and well flowing manner is by far one of the hardest parts to organizing a conference.

Shannon

Brian Cox. Brian Cox. Brian Cox.

You need to get to Europe (and India and China) and bring some of the best speakers from there over here.

That’s how to improve the echo chamber. I keep hoping that a conference steps it up in our industry. So far TED, “D”, and PopTech are the ones in the US that really push the boundaries in a way that you seem to want to do, but find much better speakers than you were able to put on stage.

>Maybe I’m wrong, and the industry still needs to talk about how FaceBook is taking over the world – in person, as opposed to hashing it out endlessly in our respective blogs.

Thats NOT what i want. But you personalized it again, which makes it very difficult to give feedback.

What was missing from this year’s Gnomedex? A sense of play and enjoyment of technology. I miss Phillip Torrone.

It was inappropriate, though, and sometimes in the heat of the moment we do stuff that later doesn’t seem very smart.

Good for you to answer the concerns. I’m looking forward to Gnomedex next year.

I’ll come back to your slam about “Facebook gadgets” in the next comment, just wanted to get this one out.