So Dave chastises vloggercon for not running their conference the right way:
I’m at the back of the main ballroom at VloggerCon in SF. If you’re here, the people on stage are asking the audience for questions after they did presentations. Folks, that is not an unconference. Please. No audience, and don’t ask questions, say things, tell stories. Most of the smarts are in the room not on the stage. If you’re here come by and say hello. I’m wearing a black hat and a black polo shirt. And geez, people are lining up at a microphone and making speeches. There should be a session here about what an unconference is.
Let’s pull out some choice phrases from that rant:
- “[T]he people on stage are asking the audience for questions after they did presentations. Folks, that is not an unconference.”
Now, I might be mistaken here, but I have never seen anyone call VloggerCon an unconference. It’s not described that way on its website, the word “unconference” is not mentioned once in their Wiki… So if Dave meant to just point out that VloggerCon is not an “unconference”, then he did a fine job. If he’s trying to imply that it should be or, more likely, that it was supposed to be and isn’t living up to its billing — well — he’s just way off base.
- “Most of the smarts are in the room not on the stage.”
Obviously… but only because Dave is not on stage.
- “And geez, people are lining up at a microphone and making speeches.”
Wait, wait, wait… did he want people to “say things” or not? What’s the difference between a story and a speech?
- “There should be a session here about what an unconference is.”
There should? Why? What do unconferences have to do with vlogging? Maybe Dave should’ve gone up to a mic and told a story about unconferences.
Or maybe he should just back off and let the vloggers have their conference the way they want to.
“geez, people are lining up at a microphone and making speeches”.
At an unconference they don’t have to move to make speeches… the microphone moves to them. Of course, the “discussion leader” has a lot of control over the microphone movement but the bloggercon I listened to on audio was less interesting from a content point of view but more interesting as theater… especially when dave would stop someone from talking when the corssed one of Dave’s lines. Then the audience suggested that Dave let more people talk and he told them they could leave if they didn’t “understand” the rules. The rules are there and enforced by Dave.
Sometimes the unconference format gets really, really ugly fast… like many blog comment “pits”. Dave always insists it’s because the audience didn’t understand the rules but it seems to be becuase dave doesn’t do groups well when he gets upset. If the audience is already inline with his view of reality and tech then it’s a love-fest but when he’s confronted with argument he gets ugly and abusive quickly.
When a traditional conference is good it’s because someone worked really hard to prepare a presentation that is of value to the audience. Dave’s view of traditional confernences is that he already knows everything he needs to know and just wants the opportunity as soon as possible to rebute the speaker or let people know he invented it already.
From a distribution of intelligence point of view the audience does have more collective knowledge than the speaker BUT from the point of view of subject matter knowledge the audience may be “off topic” and confused by assumptions… Frankly, I think most conferences have dubious productivity value. More useful and applicable information might be obtained on-line or in a good bookstore… but the social dimensions ARE stimulating. And the opportunities for food and drink are unsurpassed.
I’m going to Starbucks.