April 29th, 2007,
there are 3 comments and the post was tagged with

BarCampMontréal 2

I stayed offline almost completely today so of course coming back there are already a few good overviews of BarCampMontréal 2. Good thing though, saves me some time writing a wrapup. (Si ça vous tente pas de lire toute la patente, allez au moins jetter un coup d’oeil aux derniers paragraphes)

Saturday

First go read Evan’s excellent overview. I agree with him, except for the following notes and a few things to add.

Hugh’s talk was indeed excellent but it’s also interesting to see his progression. He’s always been good at getting his point across but he’s even better now, and his set of slides show how much a presentation can be enhanced with simple well thought out slides.

Martine’s talk and following discussion was well received and Simon and Fred were thinking on their feet and seeing the importance of what was being said adjusted the time alloted. I might post something soon about my thoughts on what was said.

Participation

The two issues I have can probably be solved together. The first thing is something the happened at the first BarCamp too, people are encouraged to prepare 15 minutes and that this will be followed by questions / a discussion, time slots planned at 30-45 minutes (can’t find it, maybe I saw that on the main site but the rest of the argument remains). In the last few days before the conference people add their names and we end up with “too many” (nice problem) proposed presentations. The schedule then switches to “15 minutes including discussion”. Way too short. In some cases we didn’t get to ask any questions at all.

Not only does 15 minute take away the possibility of a good conversation afterwards in and of itself but it also precludes what I think is an important part of the “everyone participates” aspect. Which brings us to my second issue, I think too much emphasis is put on presenting. A number of people in attendance this time didn’t come to the first because it seemed like you had to present to get in.

My perception of BarCamp is that the aim is interaction in groups so someone presents and people respond, discuss, interact. “When you come, be prepared to share with barcampers.” Sharing doesn’t imply presenting, it implies participating. It might seem like too many people aren’t participating because one of the aspects of participation is taken away.

I find it interesting that there is both talk about wetter it should be more targeted subject wise and that too many people don’t participate. I’m not sure there are that many new techies we can get to speak, if we want more of the people in attendance to talk, we’ll have to accept the same diversity of talks that we have been.

Right now we have only one track which limits where we can go with numbers. We already had too many presenters to permit real conversations after their talks, if we push for more people and a higher percentage of speakers, the problem will be even worse. There were a couple of 5 minutes ideas, some to promote “dipping a toe” by doing a quick talk which is a great idea and Powerpoint Karaoke for… not sure. Fun but to my mind the time could have been better spent.

I think if we split the floor to two tracks we can accept more speakers and perhaps have a “tech and code” track and an “around tech and personal interest” track. I’d also make it 30 minutes for every talk, with a whiteboarded schedule. Start times are fixed, if some talks don’t generate a discussion, you don’t present the next, the time left is a chance to stretch and meet people, or someone can get up for a 5 minute subject or slide over to the other track. That way you can look at the schedule, choose a presentation and not have to worry you’re missing two because one went short.

With more talks the groups are smaller so perhaps more people pipe up with questions. If more people come knowing half the time slot is interaction, they might feel more like it’s a requirement to dive in with questions. I wouldn’t put more emphasis on actually speaking, keep the current tone or even lessen it. If we fine there are too many people just hanging around, we can adjust and maybe prod people who’ve attended once or twice without speaking, give them some pointers on presenting. I don’t think it’s a problem so far, maybe getting there but not a problem. More tracks, more time slots, more speakers, more discussions, more participating. Done.

I know it implies more work organization wise and I’ll put in time at the next event to help with what I’m suggesting. Although…

Oh Canada

Excellent news, Fred and Simon announced that our next BarCamp will actually be BarCampCanada, w00t! TorCamp, BarCampOttawa and BarCampMontréal will come together here. Should make for some good times and great content. Which means there should also be plenty of experienced organizers, maybe I won’t be needed to pitch in for the tracks ;). So far BarCampVancouver isn’t listed for it but we should invite them too of course (I know it’s far to come “only” for a BarCamp though) et évidemment c’est l’occasion parfaite pour les gens de Québec de venir parler et participer eux aussi. (Challenge à cfd, le Fried Québécois)

En français

C’est probablement un peu curieux venant de la par d’un gars qui écrit son blogue en anglais, pas pareil comme situation selon moi mais je sait que certains vont remarquer. En tout cas, j’aimerais fortement recommander aux francophones de faire leurs présentations en français. Présentement une large majorité des présentations sont en anglais malgré que la foule soit (j’estime) au moins 50% franco. Je doute qu’il y a ai beaucoup d’unilingues anglophones dans la salle de toute façon donc pourquoi switcher?

Hugh, anglophone, a fait un effort pour présenter 50 – 50% mais on a eu 3-4-5 francos qui ont présenté en anglais. Un peu curieux quand même. Au pire, utilisez la “méthode Tanguay”, faites vos slides en anglais et parlez français. (c’est Sylvain qui a nommé ça comme ça, pas moi :-D)

[Update] Un peu moin valide comme recommandation pour le prochain, puisque ce sera certainement plus anglos (ce qui n’empêche rien non plus).

Yulblog encourage le camping

Fred a remercié les commanditaires et demande qu’on en trouve d’autres. J’ai considéré (et ça pourrait toujours arriver) commanditer moi-même avec Taste of Blue mais quand même, les commandites sont $500, c’est peut-être un peu abusif pour une compagnie d’une personne.

En me promenant cet après-midi j’ai eu un flash, Yulblog devrait commanditer. Une communauté qui commandite un événement communautaire, m’semble que c’est le fun. Comme c’est une conférence nationale, ce serait en plus une bonne occasion de montrer cette belle tradition de bloggeurs locaux qui date de 8 ans maintenant.

D’ici à Mercredi je vais faire une petite tournée des sites ou faire des campagnes de financement et en ouvrir une pour ramasser notre argent. En attendant j’aimerais bien quand même avoir votre opinion, avoir une idée si ça va fonctionner. Personellement je vais mettre un p’tit rouge dans le pot.

April 27th, 2007,
there are 0 comments and the post was tagged with

Agile VCs

Not sure if that’s really a good way of naming them but I think it’s pretty good; lightweight, rapid iterations, flexible and they invest in ideas/products that are often built on agile concepts, platforms and frameworks.

There are more and more of those “Agile VCs”, including 2-3 who’ve launched recently so I thought I’d do a quick run down.

Y Combinator

The first, started up by Paul Graham among others, is Y Combinator. They hold rounds of submissions from people with ideas for web apps and services, chose a few and give them $5000 per founder, a place to work and surround them with experts. They create an environment they believe will help those new startup thrive and make it to market. In exchange they take a stake in the company of around 6%.

Techstars

Techstars is pretty much the same kind of system but based in Colorado. They give $15k per company so that can end up being a bit more or quite a bit less than Y Combinator. Same concept, a bit of money, a lot of support for a fixed 5% stake.

YEurope

Lame name, YEurope is not related to Y Combinator but they evidently based their name and even some site details on it, not very imaginative. 5000€ per founder plus a flat 5000€ for the project so a decent bit more than the american ones. It’s in Vienna, not sure how expensive the town is though. YEurope will be taking a 2-10% stake. It’s a bit strange that there isn’t more info about the founders though, since support is a main component of all those projects, you’d assume they’d push the founders.

Seedcamp [Added 2007-07-06]

There is now also Seedcamp in London.

















Seedcamp is where Europe’s top young founders can come together in one place… From securing funding to developing the right network, young entrepreneurs in Europe face challenges in building globally competitive technology businesses. Through the provision of seed capital and a world class network of mentors, we want to provide a catalyst for Europe’s next generation of entrepreneurs.

















HitForge

Last one I’ve heard of is HitForge and they’re doing things differently. Actually, they’re probably closer in philosophy to Ev Williams’ Obvious, kind of a coop of engineers incubating ideas and projects rather than companies (although the goal of course is to spin off those projects).

















We are owners of our companies, share common tools and code, and have enough money to fund dozens of attempts to find the next big hit. We don’t get locked into failed projects, we replace pointy-haired MBAs with modern web marketing, and we share stock so that if one of us wins, everybody wins.

































Web businesses are unpredictable despite the best of intentions and execution. We defy the traditional venture model by giving pooled stock across many of our projects, and by killing projects and starting fresh rather than chasing dead ends.

































We work independently in very small teams until we are convinced that the project is ready for more people or investment. We share common software, hardware, and operational resources, and leave the choice of development language and platform to the teams.

















There’s no info whatsoever on the members though, except for a bit of good natured boasting. Hopefully if you “make the cut” they tell you a lot more before asking you to jump in.

Over Here

I know some people are trying to get the VC/angel crowd moving in Montréal, I wonder if something like the combinators could work here? For all of Canada actually, since the projects mentioned are in specific places but they take submissions from everywhere.

As for HitForge, it reminds me of what Hugh and I have talked about before.

















what I’ve always wanted was to get a group of developers (idea, code, design) together with some seed money and just start prototyping small projects, and then having another group take them the next phase.

















The Forge seems to have a model that might make it work although I’d like to have more details on the split of money and shares under that structure.

I have a few ideas along those lines myself, if people with money want to talk about it ;).

April 27th, 2007,
there are 1 comment and the post was tagged with

Projet de loi sur l’assainissement d’Internet

















Joy Smith, du parti Conservateur à Ottawa a proposé mercredi dernier une Loi sur l’assainissement d’Internet (C-427). Certains pays qui censurent Internet doivent se mordre les doigts de ne pas y avoir pensé avant.—Projet de loi sur l’assainissement d’Internet

















April 27th, 2007,
there are 3 comments and the post was tagged with

Inbox Zero Beeatch

That’s right, nothing in the inbox! Quite a few things in the kGTD todo but a good step done.

April 26th, 2007,
there are 1 comment and the post was tagged with

The Magnificence of The Universe

Over lunch I was watching a Poptech Popcast with Richard Dawkins and he read this quote by Carl Sagan;

















How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way. A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths”.

















Indeed.

Back to top