My interest in unconferences — a self-organizing group discussion in a particular domain — is buoyed by an account of Science Foo Camp (courtesy of a tip from the Skinny Dipper). SciFoo is modeled after the Tim O’Reilly’s FooCamp, started in 2003, and was invitation only for some 200 scientists. According to a Forbe’s article on the subject, among the attendees were: Bill Joy (Sun Microsystems), Danny Hillis (Thinking Machines), Esther Dyson (venture capitalist), the Google braintrust, and Donald Hopkins (Carter Center).
There are two variables in an unconference* that are most intriguing for me: group size and domain of interest. My WebLab experiences sold on the idea that small groups permit greater connection and better discussion. Without any restriction on size, I wonder if some optimal size would emerge from a study of FooCamps. Would the quality of the discussion diminish once the group got over 15-20 people? 30? 100? As for the domain, Timo Hanny recently posted a meta-description of SciFoo, including this bit:
Unlike technogeeks, perhaps scientists from very different disciplines don’t have that much to say to each other, and perhaps scientists’ own rather conservative instincts would make it difficult for them to enter fully into the freewheeling, almost anarchic spirit of a Foo Camp. On the other hand, isn’t Foo Camp a generic way to bring together any group of interesting and interested people to create a kind of intellectual chain reaction?
It would be a very nice cross-sectional study, as well, to look at these open discussions and how they self-organize and interact. Clearly, SciFoo was a success, and TechFoos are now the rage. Is there a group where this format would never work?
Although we have never organized any such thing, my work with 3rdParty.org would really lend itself well to trying a PoliticFoo unconference. Politics in this country (and probably elsewhere) is polarized. While media and an emphasis on party needs are easy culprits, I believe the larger factor in this polarization is the basic goal of a political discussion. When two people engage in talk about politics, the implied goal is persuasion — convince the other person that your belief is right, or succomb to a better argument and change your philosophy. What if that goal was changed to understanding? I suspect that a PoliticFoo would be a good forum to try to make this switch.
Of course, the “Foo” part of the concept also bothers me (FOO = Friends of O’Reilly). Taking a cue for O’Reilly’s initial effort in 2003, these Foo Camps are invite only. Selected minds come together to have interesting discussions. And even if that group is very purposefully diverse on several axes, it embeds a problem of accessiblity. Our national political framework was set up from the beginning to be this kind of republic, where a smaller segment of our total population claims to speak for the entirety of the nation. Foo Camps have a similar kind of feel to me, where the hand-picked invitees are meant to represent the interests and knowledge of everyone else. This access issue is addressed in BarCamp, an open-invitation version of FooCamp. In fact, RootsCamp is a politically motivated BarCamp set to start up after the 2006 elections. That should be worth watching.
