banane

Hack/Hackers Unite: We Will Judge Your Play

So I recently attended, at KQED, a “Hacks/Hackers Unite” project: get iPad developers and journalists together to tell a story. I struggled, pretty much entirely through the weekend, to be enthusiastic. I had to seriously rally the second day to attend. I’m not sure why it wasn’t as inspirational and energetic, focused, fun, etc. as the iPadDevCamp, She’s Geeky, shdh, RailsBridge, MySQL meetups, Ruby-SF, or the other myriad of tech conferences I attend. I’m a big fan of getting tech folks more involved with other aspects of our culture- from journalism, museums, education, politics, etc. – so I really wanted it to work. Here are some unstructured thoughts, and sorry if I offend you in advance. I’m trying to figure out what it was that didn’t work… so that I can promote it to some other great institutions that would benefit from some techie brainstorming in mobile apps. Also, since I was given a lot of unsolicited feedback (snap), I’m wondering if it’s just an OK thing to do in media circles?

First the Positive:
I liked the people that were there- I enjoyed the techies as well as the non-techies. The demos were (as usual) totally inspiring and fun. The creativity of inventors is always something amazing to behold. So not quite sure what wasn’t in the mix. I have a feeling it’s about the format and the organization.

- Really rich content for every demo. Usually at these things you see tools and utilities or “the next Twitter/FourSquare/Yelp.” Here, we got some amazing photographs and writing. Top caliber.
- Very diverse – very interesting people – really no stereotypes, and everyone had a very deep content hobby or interest
- I almost think, because everyone was such a great communicator, they expected everyone to be good at it, which we know with Geeks, that’s not true. So simple instructions and clear announcements were lacking.
- In SF!

Areas to Improve
The funny thing about un-conferences: the “un” in “conference” isn’t about lack of organization or structure- it’s about *who* is making the structure. The community, the group, or the individual, determines the importance and focus of the content. Basically let the participants focus entirely on their projects- and organize the hell out of everything so it’s not an issue with them. This weekend was more of a unstructured hackfest, with a scary judging panel at the end. It was almost the worst of both worlds- sometimes this works: Play! We will judge your play! And sometimes, notsomuch if there are too many odd hurdles in the way… floating deadlines, petri dishes, odd judging panels.. lack of conference focus… disorganization… and “they” will judge your play. Who are “they”? Why were “they” chosen?

In assessing areas to work on, it’s more helpful for me to focus on what works. Kaliya of She’s Geeky runs an AWESOME un-conference. The Raven and Dom of iPadDevCamp/iPhoneDevCamp have a stellar way of demo’ing apps – 3 stations and volunteers queuing up folks. Kaliya and Raven has a staff of about 3-5 people helping her organize it. I think that’s the irony – that it does take a lot of work. Yes, they are shoestring and run on a budget with tons of volunteers. They’ve been going on for years (this was KQED’s first) and the volunteers were organizers by nature and didn’t work on their own projects nor blog about the event while it was going on.

Maybe it’s something about how technology folks appreciate perhaps a non-chaotic setting whereas media folks work well in the self-named “bull pen”. Perhaps techies are a coddled lot who expect silence, ability to focus, their sugar/starch of choice on hand, and an appreciative clap on the back at the end of the day. I’m not sure. I just know I love it. My short list of feedback:

We had a single build environment which caused a lot of last-minute anxiety. Not only was the build engineer also competing, but it was poorly communicated and an odd/unusual/not-recommended way to deploy demos
Stay on top of the coffee situation
Clear the chairs out from under the project paper- so folks can dawdle and read and form groups
Clear chairs- clear areas to work- clear trash, etc. or announce to people to do that if it gets messy
Keep conversations at a minimum and away from working developers- including interviews, cameras, etc
There was some craziness regarding t-shirt giveaways, which usually aren’t that complicated.
Judge feedback- This is a tough one. Take care with your judging panel. More on this later.
Petri Dish- all content is not for free- privacy is a *big deal* to developers, and constant snapping of photos/liveblogging/twittering during a dev camp, esp. by a high profile broadcaster may not be appreciated- in the least ask permission and do it rarely (to developers) And in many, (she’sgeeky) not at all , or for some (iPhoneDevCamp) do at select times.
I learned, approximately 1/2 hour into it, that the “iPad” in the “hack/hackers unite” title of the conference, was for hype. Big fail. If you think that, fine, but telling a developer who is into the iPad, and devoted her weekend to it, that the whole thing could have been without the iPad?

I talked to some techies about why they came. We found out about it through the same software development list, had gone to some similar events and conferences together so I think I can generally state that they’re of my mindset. They were clear about avoiding journalists that simply wanted free developers. Also, they came because they wanted to break out of the tech-specific conferences that are so tool- and-next-big-thing oriented. The content is fun, and it’s so rich. There was an aura of desperation and bitterness, and while I understood it, it’s a bit naive to think that the technology sector hasn’t also been hit some blows recently- the recession, outsourcing, and also having to find “the next big thing”, or the countless start-ups that go bust, etc. It’s a scary topic for many non-technologists, and techies were there to meet them in the middle. And most non-tech folks I talked to were happy to learn and pick up, as well as contribute their skills.

I can’t tell you how many official-looking KQED folks walked up to me *while I was working* and not only asked for a demo but wanted to give me (unsolicited) feedback. Also, media folks who interrupted me talking to someone. Standing in front of me, or otherwise doing this rude conversational behavior. I can’t tell you how many times this happened, with different people. I met some very gracious and nice folks- Tim Olson head of Interactive, took me on a *very cool* tour of the soundstudios and server rooms of KQED. My project partner Stacy knew everyone- as well as famous NPR personality we ran into in the elevator, the technologist reporter Laura Sydell. (I logged it mentally as my brother-in-law has a game: how may NPR personalities have you met… and I will now outrank him.) The rudeness of the media folks made me think that we were simply filling a void, and weren’t unique in ourselves. That, along with the iPad slur, dampened my enthusiasm quite a bit.

Judging: I’ve setup judging panels before, and it’s very difficult, not just because you are dealing with Big Personalities, but also because you need to pick people whose opinions, the random geek attendant will respect. That’s why, in this kind of setup, I’d recommend peer-judging vs. “big personality” especially if there’s only 2 (of the tech field). They ended up having interesting feedback, but still, if I’d have known who they were I wouldn’t have come, because of the judging format, and the televised nature.

I’m writing this because I really want this to work in the future. So I’m sorry if I’ve offended folks, but I’d love for other organizations to tap into the richness of geekery in the SF Bay, and it can be done, well. KQED has forged ahead for us in this. They’ve broken the ice. I’m also fascinated with access to communities such as the rich iPad software development groups. Access, in terms of women and minorities and other marginalized populations. In talking to the organizers, they were shocked at the lack of diversity in tech events- oddly my project partner and I had met at She’s Geeky. There were no other female techs at this event, as far as I could survey. I am very interested in making communities like this- tech and journalist- more open to different kinds of people who will feel comfortable and accepted, so making it a hyped (but in a cool way),clear and easy, instructional format is key to this effort. Still, I won’t sugarcoat it, there were areas for improvement.

Share and Enjoy:

This entry was posted on Monday, May 24th, 2010 at 1:06 pm and is filed under feminism, technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. View blog reactions Stumble it! You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

burtherman

First, thanks for taking the time to write this feedback (and futurely, please drop me a line pointing me to the post, because we very much need feedback to improve).

I know you weren't happy by the judging process, but I did think the panel offered valuable comments and understood that the projects were put together in just a weekend (actually less!). Having objective judges critique projects in front of the whole group also is a great way to learn.

As for broadcasting, I've also typically seen all these events livestreamed. It was not broadcast on KQED to a mass audience, I'm not sure if there was a misunderstanding about that.

Regarding the iPad, it was indeed aimed at the iPad and developing applications for the device. We also allowed Web apps due to the closed nature of the App Store, and wanted to encourage projects that could work on future tablets as well. KQED/NPR did not want to appear as if they were endorsing the iPad specifically as a product, nor did we. It's simply that is the first widely adopted tablet device, so that's why we were developing for it.

This is a sensitive issue especially for journalists who are concerned about giving Apple a potential veto over their content and the right to block something from being published for reasons that are sometimes unclear.

banane

Hi Burt,

Yeah there's no really new feedback in here as I gave most of it to you in person, and was sitting next to you the entire weekend - (to those reading this, ha) I posted this blog post to the hashtag, #hhunite, right after I wrote it. BTW- there was a typo on the board on Sunday- #hhuite- not sure if that caused any weirdness in the following of events. I pointed it out to Saheli but she didn't see what I was talking about. Anyways.

RE: livecasting- it's one of those "nice to haves" in my opinion, and shouldn't determine the entire process for the demo round. When you're developing, especially when it's a project that's speed-written, the stability of the deployment environment is crucial. Luckily I got one of the bugs that popped up as Xavier was building my project, but I had to loiter around his desk for an hour or so. Hearing 10 minutes before the deadline (that nobody respected, but I didn't know that then) that the build env. was going to be jailbroken, pretty much made me panic. But hey, it's one thing in a list of "next times". Consider making a technologist part of the organizing/steering committee.

RE: Apple's policies. Developers are of two minds about this. I understand Apple's motives and I'm not particularly passionate one way or another. Currently, we develop to get Apple-store approved. I respect the UI considerations Apple's trying to maintain (some Android apps, btw, truly suck). Sure there are other considerations re: overlapping with their apps, but I haven't run into that yet. Why have an iPad if we're judging web apps? They seem part of the lack of focus of this event. If it's about storytelling, don't worry about the hardware. iPad has some cool aspects that you could have highlighted. The thing about the judging round is just that- it's OK if it's a lack of focus and a hackfest. But then being judged publicly by it, on livestream, makes it a little more crazy anxiety-producing. (And thus not welcoming/open to diff. types of people, etc.)

My understanding re: the focus of the event was gleaned from the literature I read on the [software-92] list. But then a blogger interviewed you, while you were sitting next to me, and you said the iPad was a hook, or hype, for getting techies to attend. Sorry if I misheard you.

I wrote native obj-c for that purpose. Again, if you're going to do this again I'd say- bring a technologist on and they will be very clear with the developers about the expectations for the development platform, tech, etc.

It's funny, most of my feedback is about continuing this kind of idea with other nonprofits and cultural groups, outside of Silicon Valley. So I'm very interested in the bumps and hiccups. The overall idea was great, and I don't want my feedback to be construed as "omg never do this again." I'm *very* interested in open access to more diverse groups, so I'm thinking of how to accommodate more people, more kinds of people, and in a welcoming manner.

While I look forward to, and love the demo round- to me, it's just that- demo'ing your app for your peers. It really doesn't have to be more than that. Feedback is good, but it can be given by anyone. The judges (some of them) gave great feedback, some was laughable. Again, a techie on your board might have helped pick out a judge that had iphone/ipad experience, and was peer-respected. I'm not identifying any singular judge, but that's the tough part of setting up a judging panel. Instead, use a crowd-choice or applause rating, and put more energy into the details of the organization of the event itself. Have you been to shdh? The shdh model takes lack of organization to an extreme, but it's embraced. If you have a contest, though, then you kind of have to be organized.

Anna

burtherman

Just to clarify on the iPad theme -- yes, that was definitely a hook to getting techies and media types alike to attend.

But I didn't expect we'd save journalism in a weekend, as I said at the end of it all. Rather, the real motivation of the event and Hacks/Hackers more broadly is to bring journalists and developers together to talk about the future of media. We need to work together from the start of the process. For too long, media organizations bring the developers in after they've produced something and build technology around that. I think the form of how we present stories changes how they should be produced. That's why your project also was a great idea -- creating a new way for people to tell stories about the objects from their lives.

I'm happy to be having this dialogue here with you and to have you involved with the group!

Stacy Bond

Anna -

It’s so intriguing to read your feedback about our experience over the weekend at HacksHackersUnite -- in particular because I was the hack part of your team! Having never attended a Dev Camp before, it was a fascinating experience for me. (Even though, apparently, this was a less than stellar example.)

You’ve made some astute observations. There are a couple of points I’d like to respond to in the interest of more effective events in the future, so I’ll add my thoughts to yours.

1) Communication from the Organizers: it’s obvious to me that there was confusion about who was, in fact, presenting the event, something that should have been made clear for various reasons.

Although the event was held at KQED’s studios, KQED was not presenting or producing the event, merely acting as a sponsor. KQED Interactive donated the use of the facility, the food, and a person to act as a facilities coordinator/on site liaison. Other media sponsors included Knight Digital Media Center, and NPR.

Burt Herman’s Meet-Up group – Hacks&Hackers – was the organizing entity, and solicited the sponsorships, including the support from KQED.

Here’s why this is important: because Burt is a journalist, and the KQED Interactive sponsorship came from the online development part of the organization. Thus, you had a dev camp organized/produced by a journalist, with “financial” support from developers. If the scenario were flipped, I suspect the structure of the event would have been different, and you would have felt more enthusiastic and at home, while I would have felt more dissatisfied.

This is such a naturally telling example of the challenges the two groups have to surmount to work well together. It’s especially interesting that you observed/took issue with some things I didn’t even notice, and that speaks to the fact that this was an event organized by journalists, rather than by developers.

2) Working Conditions: although I’ve never actually heard it called the “bull pen,” yes, a newsroom is very much like one. I confess to being one of the guilty parties who felt no qualms circulating and talking while people were working, jumping in unbidden to ask what was going on, etc. Because I’m used to working in the midst of chaos, it never occurred to me that others might not be so inclined (!). It’s a good reminder that similar efforts in the future should have folks from both camps organizing the space, the timelines, the working conditions, etc., and that perhaps some reminders about protocols are in order at the start of each day and maybe after lunch each day. In a way, I’m laughing at myself for behaving exactly like a journalist at that event.

3) iPad Hype: I agree with you about this, being an unfortunate disclosure. My own disappointment stemmed from the fact that it made this seem like a less serious endeavor with regard to the platform. I wanted to be contributing a content idea specific to the device, and I had gone to pains to think about what the larger screen, the portability, it’s capabilities etc. might lend themselves to. Further, the disappointment of the developers also had an impact on my enthusiasm. For the record, I do know that Burt (and later Tim Olson) had reached out to Apple to see if they would attend, and there was supposed to be a team from Apple’s “Sprout” stopping by at some point, which would have been nice. Using the word “hype” might be overstating just a *little,* but maybe once the iPad was decided upon, there should have been a firmer commitment to the idea.

4) Unconferences: as a fellow She’s Geeky veteran, I feel we have perhaps gotten a little spoiled because Kaliya is indeed so skilled at organizing unconferences, using just the right amount of structure and man-power to make it seems as though there’s a hands-off approach even though there is quite a bit of planning underneath it all. I’m inclined to cut Hacks & Hackers a little slack on this just because this was their first one, and I’ve actually been to some tremendously, mind-blowingly crappy unconferences in the past. This fell somewhere in the middle for me.

5) Media Coverage: this is just another clarification, but in my observation, the media gathering, photo snapping, interviewing, etc. was not actually being done by KQED. The folks I observed were from other/outside publications, and by members of the Hacks & Hackers group themselves. Still, it’s a good reminder that journalists and developers may have different ideas of what’s public and what’s not, and I can see how being inside a media institution may cause some to feel that everything going on is up for free-for-all documentation. These are guidelines that should be set out in advance. I love how She’s Geeky handles this.

6) Feedback: again, with the exception Craig Miller on the judging panel, I don’t believe the feedback we received was from anyone at KQED. I was under the impression that Burt had specifically asked some of the speakers from the first day, including Jennifer Bove from Kicker Studios, to circulate and offer feedback to the teams.

7) Judging: I don’t know how demos and judging panels normally work at dev camps, but funnily enough, I took that particular scenario as just being par for the course. I was actually saying to myself: “people do this all the time at these events, no need to be nervous, everyone is going to be supportive, this is how it’s done, just go with it and see what happens!” And now come to find out, that’s not how it usually works!

These are just my thoughts on some of the points you’ve raised. Apologies for going on so long, but I really find these two perspectives so interesting.

On a personal level, as a media content creator who’s used to relying on communication to tease out concepts for translation into words alone, I was challenged by the differences in work-style between folks falling on either side of the equation. You are absolutely right that media folks are used to constant feedback throughout the process (that’s how editorial planning and production workflow is structured in a newsroom). I spoke to several developers about different projects and ideas, and at times I felt as if we were looking across a river at each other and trying to communicate in different languages. It wasn’t a bad thing, but came as a surprise.

Despite the faults of the event, I can’t help but feel enthusiastic about the future of the intersection of technology and content. Everyone I met was capable, interesting, and friendly, and like you said, the demos were fun. I’m also very excited about Ephemera, and that only happened because of our shared love of the hidden and the found. Hope this perspective is interesting and/or helpful!

banane

Stacy- Great response! It is really interesting to see the journalist/mediaperson side of it. In having a bit more distance on this weekend, I keep thinking: if they had a technologist on the organizing team, a lot of these problems would have been avoided.

The beginning of something is hard- and understanding, through you conversationally while we worked on our project, and here in comments, of the different entities behind it, really explains a lot.

Oh, and thanks for clarifying who/what was KQED, it was all a gloss- especially since I'm just so out of the media world. But what's also interesting is that folks need to introduce themselves- someone not knowing who they are, doesn't really give license for (what I deem as) rude behavior, does it?

I'm thinking if other organizations want to house a kind of hackfest, and it seems like a potent formula, to introduce the idea of: a nametag doesnt' excuse you from common politeness, introducing yourself... ask for permission to photograph... etc.

I feel like I've done so much nonprofit, organizational stuff in the Bay Area, it's hard to sit by and watch this stuff be done poorly, and not want to help. But I wanted to get our project done.... I'd hoped they'd reach out, if they do it again, to sister organizations for tips and resources on how to pull these things off. While I see it not necessarily as a media vs. hacker problem, but more of a newbie on the "event organization" block.

BTW, you were really courteous about conversations and dialogues with folks who wanted to give us (unsolicited) feedback, while I just got up and left ;) Now who is rude!

Anna

David E. Weekly

Anna,

As one of the four judges, I can tell you that I loved the concept behind Ephemera. All four judges agreed very strongly that for long-term potential to collect the most interesting data, Ephemera was tops. I was talking with folks about it for quite some time after the conference wrapped up!

That said, some deeply narcissistic part of me was sad to read that if you had heard who we judges were you wouldn't have shown up. (Unsurprising, perhaps, given that we're such Big Personality and Important People, heh.) Was there a way we could/should have better provided feedback?

Cheerio,
David

banane

David, by the way I was really impressed with your feedback and was even thinking today of diving in and getting the timeline slider working.

It's not that I disagree with yourself or the other judges indivdiually (for the techie side), it's just that I *really love* peer review from participants. I talked to Burt about this later- that judge review by an outside panel is a bit harsh for a 2-day workshop, but he mentioned that it's how TechCrunch did it, and that's how he modeled it. I was thinking more of the shdh demo model, than the "show experts your 2-day hack" kind of thing. And, judging by some of the stuff up there, I was shocked that they got it done in 2 days- but perhaps that was due to big teams and WebKit? Not sure.

I'm also not going after venture interest, so feedback in a cutthroat kind of American Idol style (and it did kind of seem that way) wasn't really fun. Though it ended up being more mellow than I feared, which is good. What I'm trying to say is that it's not necessarily the Big Personality of internet famous people that would have kept me away- but the competitiveness.

Funny, I don't think of you as having a BP, when I wrote that I was thinking of a (cough) certain individual that SF WoW invited ona judging panel, and then were were coerced basically into awarding Top 25 gifts to some random other Big Personalities and in my view, it was somewhat of a disaster.

David E. Weekly

[nod] I see where you're coming from (well, per the title of this post in particular) - having a format of JUDGING (a strong word) for fun hacks seems harsh. Perhaps "solicitation for feedback for improvement" would have been a different way to frame it?

I was full of ideas for Ephemera (geotagging history!) that I wanted to share but felt I didn't exactly have the right format for relating those.

Hack/Hackers Unite: We Will Judge Your Play

Recent Posts

Lifestream

Follow Me

Pages

Categories