Re: Interactive Science Meeting-platforms or ideas? #events
|
Why is it 2 hours?? What if you never had them all in the same place/time and you spread it out over a week. And you provided the science asynchronously as videos and then you engaged in discussion on different channels, like a wiki site or a forum, and you then used a match making tool to do either 1:1 connections, or? small group connections (4-5 people) over the week?? How many people are in the group?? 100?? If everyone were to meet and talk to everyone else for 15 minutes, you would have 25 hours of conversation.? If you drop that to groups of 5, then you would have 5 hours of conversation.?? Stuffing those connections into 2 hours seems a bit tricky.? And then there are the dynamics of who gets to speak when....? If you lighten up on some constraints (time, duration, synchronous), you give yourself options for other serendipity to happen.?? I have had great experiences going to conferences where I skipped the presentations and just used the match making tool (in this case Brella) to meet with folks who had questions for the whole time.? I bet that there is an opportunity to do "better" with a reconfigured semi-asynchronous process spread out over some period of time ( perhaps a bit more than a week), which would create a much higher sense of connection.? None the less, there are plenty of tools to play with if you want to try different synchronous things.? We use Remo as a way to drive things, because it gives us the opportunity to let people mingle in small groups on their own, and yet bring people back to focus on talks.? How many people? How many talks? what percentage of the time is doing mingling vs presentations? If you are going to JAM? 80% of the time into presentations, then you should just make the talks be videos that you send to people ahead of time. Just so you have time for mingling.? So, I hope that I am highlighting some alternative ways to think about the task beyond the technology question.? On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:14 PM Leilani Henry <lrh@...> wrote:
--
|
John Sechrest