also sprach Adrian von Bidder <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005.03.16.1344 +0100]: > I found the first hour basically wasted time - the strength of IRC > is that it's real-time, while the form of the first hour of debate > did not really use that, The goal of the first hour was to make sure that the candidates do not have much time to polish their responses but must write more or less off the top of their heads. I feel this allows us to get to know them better without their diplocatic DPL candidate masks. also sprach Frank Küster <email@example.com> [2005.03.16.1428 +0100]: > My suggestion is that only one person is allowed to speak (i.e., > type and press enter) at a time. Very difficult to do, since people may be in process of composing a line when +v is removed. > Every candidate would have to raise their hands in order to get > the word, or could choose not to speak up at a certain point. This is already very difficult in the real world. If observed by all candidates, then it's basically a very dull "debate". > This would avoid that two or three lines of thought are totally > mixed without even saying that one is talking about something > different IRC is based on context. I do not see it as a disadvantage to have intermixed comments, rather as an advantage of IRC over real-live discussions (where it would be impossible to follow). It was a tough time to hold this debate, but having thought about it a lot beforehand, I do not really see significant ways to improve an IRC debate with that many (or more) candidates. I feel that time-pressure is an interesting component to "exploit" which limits the debate to a synchronous medium. As opposed to VoIP/Phone, IRC has the advantage of giving you the scrollback. Also, noone really minds if you return to previous issues. During the second hour, I was struggling hard to find my purpose. I had to make sure to keep the discussion going, stop it from side-tracking, stop it from homing in on details, and simultaneously try not to actually take part in the debate (someone claimed I did, although I could not identify what I may have done wrong... pointers/comments welcome). I purposely avoided voicing/devoicing because it's a little too close to censorship and a little too radical, I found. In the year to come, I will hopefully find some time to research into the CSCW field and figure out how one might best approach this debate. Then next year, we can run another experiment. :) -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Description: Digital signature