What I wonder about FOO camp


FOO
camp sounds pretty amazing… and also unreal, really, to a peon like me ;-) 
I’ve read several of the write-ups, and I’m intrigued by the way the sessions got
organized (no surprise here).  A couple of people alluded to it, and
Jeremy
Zawodny
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/> was
the most titillating with:



 

After
dinner on Friday night, we were asked to gather upstairs to get things rolling. We
did some introductions so that everyone had a [brief] chance to put names with faces.
Then they brought in some very large grids (schedules) so that we could start filling
in sessions. We had 1-hour time slots on Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday to fill.




 

Chaos
ensued.




 

It
was good chaos.




 

We
managed to self-organize.




 

So
what happened?  How did the chaos catalyze?  Are the sessions that got put
up on the grids the sessions that really happened?  Did it change over the course
of the weekend? Was there any pattern to the changes?  Was
there voting?  Did strong personalities prevail? Did people volunteer to lead
sessions or were they “nominated” or was it just obvious?  Were there surprises?



 

And
in the end, was there any sort of wrap-up?  Lessons learned? 



 

I’ve
seen the pictures
here,
but has anyone written about it?  If they have, and you’re seen it, point me
to it, would you please?  Or better yet, if you were there, find me at PDC and
tell me all about it in exquisite detail. I’ll buy the beers!

(Hey,
no complaining, I told you right off that I was a process wonk.)

Comments (2)

  1. JasonM says:

    Duncan Davidson has posted some about it w/ links to some other folks sites as well. Here’s his post:
    http://x180.net/Blog/Conferences/Foo.html

  2. Robert says:

    Tim Bray has a couple of enteries, with pictures, and with some interesting comments:

    http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/