On 05/27/2010 11:01 AM, Clint Adams wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> What do you think the criteria should be? Or would you prefer no >> plenaries at all? > > I don't think I can answer this because I'm not yet sure what the > point of them is. One potential advantage of having plenary talks might be a better sense of cohesion for attendees. However, we already have the day trip and the formal dinner as events which i expect will do some of that. And of course, no one is proposing required attendance or anything silly like that. The hacklab will still be open, and some people will no doubt be sleeping or eating elsewhere. Another advantage might be to communicate specific concerns to the broader group, for example if we have a wrap-up session with reportbacks from track coordinators, bosnia/DC11 exhortations, and RCBC victor announcements. Do you see any advantages to having plenaries? Any disadvantages? --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature