On 20/03/12 03:16, James Broadhead wrote:
> On 19 March 2012 14:08, Jonathan Hartley<
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2012 13:17, James Broadhead wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps a "no interactive demos" rule would be good, as these always
>>> take more time than you'd imagine.
>>
>> But I *like* interactive / live-coding demos! I'd rather make sure the
>> speakers know they **will** be cut-off in mid-stride if they overrun than
>> attempting to govern duration by the fairly indirect proxy of talk format.
>
> So do I, but in my experience they're the easiest way for the
> presenter to completely lose track of time. If we were talking about
> two 7.5 minute talks, yes. For a 5-minute talk though ...
>
> I quite liked the semi-interactive (pseudo-interactive?) presentation
> shell from last time's default argument talk, in that it managed to
> replace slides with alternating printed code examples and running code
> (without the presenter touching the keyboard). {Was a link to that
> shared around?}
Why place limits?
Is there such a glut of speakers that some can be turned-away?
(ok, there are some people who become over-enthusiastic about their
'latest' or with an inflated idea of their own import - or that of their
arcane subject, but what has been our experience of such within the group?)
Obvious comments:
- every speaker is a volunteer (treat with respect)
- few are skilled at public speaking (help along and offer forgiveness)
- most shrink from the idea of standing in-front (encourage not discourage)
I too enjoy (and probably learn more from) a well-delivered presentation
(eg font size is legible), especially live-demos. However I suggest that
just the length of the necessary set-up and break-down times preclude
most them from the realm of a 'lightning talk'. Thus it seems reasonable
to ask the victim, um, volunteer how long (s)he reasonably needs (and
then add for a number of factors - not least the idea that unless
practised, most have no idea of 'how long'! Then add for our old friend
Murphy and other contingency time!) Accordingly I wouldn't (normally)
consider a "demo" as a "lightning talk" - although I do consider demos
"valuable contributions".
- what is the purpose of a "Lightning Talk"?
- is it easier to find ppl who will talk for five minutes or those who
can manage 45?
- are Lightning talks a valid component of the Dojo format?
(listening = theory cf Dojo = practice? - perhaps!)
As an organiser of meetings I see Lightning Talks as a way of
encouraging someone mindful of the above three "Obvious Comments" -
(s)he only has to cover a few points, and quickly. There is no long
lead-up, no need to be previously internationally-acclaimed, and no
expectation of skilfully-inserted humorous quips or other 'polish'.
However this also means that some can be truly dreadful. OTOH as someone
who has been trained to 'speak' I have attended talks where I have been
cringing (both for myself and for the speaker) and yet some in the
audience have become fired-up by the topic and the event has taken on a
life of its own. Each to his own!
As a speaker, it is a way of showing what I've been doing/learning or
something that I have produced recently. As such that makes me a
'student' or a 'producer'. Neither of these terms is a synonym for
'dynamic speaker' (necessarily). Accordingly, I may not be equipped with
super whiz-bang presentation tools, and may be relying upon a few
scribbled notes and my portable (or indeed, a white-board marker).
However I have something to say that may interest my peers - and all for
the better if it helps me find someone else who is willing to tinker
with my project or to improve my understanding (even a neophyte asking
me to explain how I did 'it' is likely to improve my understanding too).
The fact remains: some topics (and some people) are BORING and keeping
to time/project plans is not something for which techs are famous (add
obligatory Douglas Adams quote about deadlines). On the other hand, some
presentations generate a huge interest/number of questions from the
audience. The task of deciding whether the 'time limit' should be
applied falls to the meeting chair-person. This is where the skill (and
luck?) should lie - not with the speakers! There are some
topics/speakers which are best shut-down early. Some seem to be
well-received but only by a narrow sub-section of those present - and
thus can be stopped 'for time' but with the promise that they will
resume in the pub afterwards... Conversely to stop something that has
'burst into flame', purely on the basis of a fairly arbitrary
round-number time-limit, would be a clear negative (IMHO).
If people leave the meeting talking about 'that great talk' then the
meeting is a ***success*** (as long as those who came to the meeting
expecting the advertised content are also leaving satisfied)! Oh yes,
chairing a meeting is a juggling act too!
Guideline or law?
Zero tolerance or sensible management?
Encourage contribution or become moribund?
--
Regards,
=dn
_______________________________________________
python-uk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
Locked
