Ponderings on unconferences

Attending UK GovCamp 2014 started me thinking about unconferences in general…

Michelle Brook1 Comment

I was at UK GovCamp 2014 over the weekend, and it was awesome. There were lots of really interesting conversations with great people. Many I already knew (and don’t get to see enough), and many I was meeting for the first time.

Some of the conversations were about sessions which had taken place (which for me were broadly around how to increase engagement with the political process), but others were around the nature of unconferences in general. And they sparked a few thoughts.

(For those who don’t know what an unconference is the wiki page provides a succinct overview, while a great write up of the event itself can be found here).

Unconferences are shaped by the brave

And/or the people already inside a given community. These aren’t always the same people – although there is obviously a Venn Diagram given that the more comfortable you feel in a situation, the more confident you are likely to be.

To lead a session at an unconference, you need to pitch an idea on the fly – often standing up to pitch it – before people vote on how keen they are to attend. One of the great things about this is it allows for a lot of flexibility and time specific/relevant sessions take place (something hit the press earlier that day? No problem, of course it can be discussed).

However, some people are really uncomfortable with raising their voice in this way. Every time I’ve been to an unconference I’ve spoken to multiple people who have said ‘I really wanted to pitch something, but I didn’t feel comfortable doing so’. And these people are often women, younger people or people coming along to a certain event for the first time. And these are different voices, often, from those who already lead discussions in other fora – and will likely have different perspectives and even different ideas of what should be discussed (and possibly solved). Unconferences do provide potential for a wider range of voices to be heard, but many seem to believe that because they are able to voice their opinions and lead sessions that unconferences are equitable. They aren’t.

Outcomes from sessions

Often the best things at conference or unconference are not the actual sessions themselves, but the conversations that take place around them; over lunch, coffee, beer/wine, or during sessions you’ve decided to skip (the so called ‘hallway track’). These conversations can lead to spin off projects and are often really exciting. Yet, there seems to be a lot of potential missing. Sessions often aren’t created with a specific outcome or aim in mind – other than a loose idea of a conversation and picking brains of people in a room. And while that isn’t necessarily a problem, sometimes it’s useful to go into a session thinking ‘what is next’, or ‘what do we want to get from the expertise in the room?’ It seems to me more than possible that you can create a session that has specific focus on a few set questions and/or specific testable outcomes (eg. a short sprint to produce a document, a brainstorm of what a certain project should look like).

So..?

In my mind these two things are joined loosely. And it’s something to do with implementation of an unconference. Don’t get me wrong, I think unconferences are great – I’m just keen to find a few alterations that help make them more equitable, allow other voices to be heard, and help produce something concrete (to change the world after the event ends).

One idea that came to me involves using an online platform to propose sessions ahead of time (and vote upon them the day before an event), making it easier for people who find it hard to pitch something in front of a room full of people they don’t necessarily feel comfortable with. And perhaps rather than just pitching sessions, you could pitch something you want to produce as a result of said session. It may be that what you want is a discussion around a topic, but there would be value in possible session leaders being encouraged to think about what other outputs could be produced. And signalling these intentions to others would help them make more informed decisions about which sessions to head to and where their expertise and interest can best be put to use (without relying on the Law of Two Feet, and the awkwardness many feel at leaving/entering a session half way through).

I’d be interested to know if others have ideas about this.

On being vulnerable

Michelle BrookLeave a comment

I suck at letting myself be vulnerable. Really I do.

I hate being judged, told I’m not good enough, or that I’m wrong. I also really (really) hate feeling stupid. I know many people dislike being in these situations, but I get so wound up by these feelings that I don’t put myself in situations where I risk being told these things. Especially in public.

In private, and in one-on-one conversations (or even on twitter), I’m more than happy to vocalise and share thoughts. And the knowledge and thoughts I have has helped inform public debate, reshaped some of the conversations around some of the topics I consider really important, and gone into academic and policy papers – indeed I help write some of the latter. Somehow the conversations and emails leading to these felt transient and safe.

When it comes to something that feels more permanent, or if it’s a situation in which I don’t feel comfortable, I hide. Most of the time not literally (although it has been none), but I make sure I’m not in a place where others can criticise me. Why? Because I’m scared of being judged badly. And my threshold where that fear kicks in is rather stupidly low.

As such I don’t blog or write as much as I should, I don’t accept invitations to, and I rarely ask for help from others. And I do my best to hold on to control in all manner of different situations.

It’s stopping me from doing a number of things that I want to do, and it’s preventing me growing in ways in which I’d like to grow. And I’m really determined to try and change that.

So this year I’ll be doing my best to ask myself why I run away from certain situations (and the answer of ‘it’s because of my past’ isn’t going to be good enough, even though it is understandable). And I’ll be trying to reduce the effect that my fear has on me. This means, for instance, blogging a lot more – and not waiting for thoughts and ideas to be ‘perfect’ before sharing them. And I’m going to accept more speaking invitations, and force myself to ask for help more.

And this is all rather intimidating prospect. But, I’ll do my best. And hopefully, I don’t f*$k up too badly. Or at least in ways it can’t be fixed.

Reading – Oct to Dec 2013

Michelle BrookLeave a comment

After a long time of not reading any books at all, I made a concerted effort to start reading again. And have turned back into the book hungry monster I used to be…

The Rapture of the Nerds – Cory Doctorow:

I normally love Cory. I.. I just couldn’t get through it. I found the writing slightly.. not quite lazy… but something. In crafting the new world, simple descriptions were given eg. the coast of France was described as being radioactive. In brackets.While I get the value and use of describing these changes casually… it just didn’t sit comfortably for me. First book I learned to put down.

Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury:

“It was a pleasure to burn”

Such a strong opening line, and a brilliant first couple of pages. But the promise of these weren’t fulfilled.

I had been waiting a long time to read the book, and was always careful not to hear any spoilers. However, I think this meant I expected too much from the book. It had always been mentioned by others in the same breath as Huxley’s Brave New World and 1984, both books I have lost myself in multiple times, and I just didn’t find it lived up to these.

While in awe of some of the scarily presentient ideas contained Fahrenheit 451 (with one scene reminding me strongly of Police, Camera, Action) I found both the book and Montag as a character too disjointed. I couldn’t connect with Montag (and I always get *far* too emotionally involved with lead characters), and found I cared little about what happened to anyone.

Aunts Aren’t Gentlemen – P. G Wodehouse:

Not my favourite of Wodehouse books – but I do enjoy any visit to the world of Wooster and Jeeves. There is a bittersweet irony as it is believed to be the last novel fully completed by Wodehouse before his death.

The Beautiful and Damned – F. Scott Fitzgerald:

I couldn’t get through the book. The story is slow, and while I don’t need to like the characters in my books,  I found Anthony and Gloria were neither interesting nor likeable. The blurb tells me that ‘their marriage is a passionate, theatrical performance’, but I found it excruiating, unhappy and I just wished for both the marriage and the book to end.

Pretty Girl in Crimson Rose – Sandy Balfour:

This was a delight to read. Delicate, enticing, the book pulled me to keep reading until I had pulled together an understanding of the authors life. While also exploring the fascinating issues of culture, national identify, politics and history, this autobiography is centered around cryptic cross words. While this may sound bizarre – it works. Really works. And even though I’ve never been the biggest fan of cross words, I have been left with a fresh appreciation for them.

And Then There Were None – Agatha Christie:

Agatha Christie books are something of a dirty secret for me – like having fallen into bed with an ex against all good judgement, they touch all the right spots, filling me with suspense, before culminating in a great climax, and then leave me feeling empty and hollow.

‘And Then There Were None’ is a masterful book by Christie, in which she lays out the premise early on, building up suspense (to almost breaking point by the end of the book), knowing what but not who. Without a Poirot or Marple like character, the reader is left not knowing who to trust – leaving you very disoriented, questioning the motives of all. I found it absorbing to read – but I won’t think much of it again.

Death Comes to Pemberley – P.D. James:

The first half of the book felt like a step into a world I thought I would never get chance to re-explore. Stepping back through the wardrobe to the world of Pemberley was bliss.

However, rapidly the focus moves away from Elizabeth. And good God, I found Darcy dull. I know the novel is set in a period of time of time in which the role of women was very different to now, however I had hoped that Elizabeth would have some part (indeed any part) in solving the murder mystery. She was the first woman I perceived as ‘strong’ in literature (in contrast to a number of strong girl characters I had ‘met’ in books) – so I was disappointed to see her take a back seat.

Following Darcy through a couple of hundred pages, was painful and tedious. I never understood my friends fascination with Mr Darcy, and now I do so even less. I found much of this rather dull, so skim-read the last 100 pages or so to find the resolution – only to find this rapidly taking place in the last 30. I really don’t think the pay off was worth it, and have no desire to hear from Mr Darcy for a long time.

I will certainly be reading the first half of the book again though. If nothing else, for this gem of a sentence:

“If this were fiction, could even the most brilliant novelist contrive to make credible so short a period in which pride had been subdued and prejudice overcome?”

The Bell Jar – Sylvia Plath:

Simultaneously the best and worst book I could read at this time – I found an odd solace in the book, empathising with the suicidal depression, exploring mental illness through a piece of semi-autobiographical writing, which drips with cynicism and humour.

I found the ending somewhat disappointing in a way – it didn’t ring true with the same rawness that I had found in the rest of the book. Although perhaps that’s more of a reflection of me than the book?

Outsider – Albert Camus:

This was a re-read of a book I had read years ago. For some reason, I can’t remember anything about it.

The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul:

Yes I was high on codeine – no, I don’t think this in anyway changed my impression of this book. Mad in all the right ways, and leaving my giggling with glee. Handed to me by a friend, largely to stop me moaning about being a) in pain b) bored, I rushed through this in a single reading. As a big Douglas Adams fan, I only have two questions: 1. Why did it take me so long to find this book. 2. Why are aren’t there more in the Dirk Gently series?

Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency – Douglas Adams:

No sooner had I finished the Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, then I ransacked my friends house hunting for this book. Sad I couldn’t find it though, so I bought it for my kindle app and read through this in a few hours (spread over two days). Very happy to have bought it in such a way – as it means I can dip in and out whenever I want. I know the characters now. It’s exactly
that type of book.

Hackers – Steven Levy:

If I never hear the phrase ‘The Hacker Ethic’ (caps not mine) again, I will die a happy woman.  I found the book semi-religious in the worship of ‘true hackers’ and ‘The Hacker Ethic.’ While I’m really interested to learn more about the time and places the author was writing about (accepting that he was writing about only a few locations – and was missing other developments in other place – which is a problem itself), the lack of critical comment really disappointed me.

Two examples stand out clearly. One is not questioning the idea that “it was only the rarest hack who called the ARPA funding ‘dirty money'”. There seems to be something interesting about use of defence money and development of technology – and it would have been nice for that idea or concept to be explored.

Secondly, and more problematically, the author fail to question assumptions regarding the lack of female hackers. The single paragraph exploring this culminates in two sentences that I hear even today as justification for fewer women being in tech:

“Even the substantial cultural bias against women getting into serious computer does not explain the utter lack of female hackers. Cultural things are strong, but not that strong” Gosper would later conclude, attributing the phenomenon to genetic, or “hardware” differences.”

Yet the book also contains a number of unnecessary anecdotes about men getting laid, or trying to get other men laid which add very little to the story – or needlessly sexualised similes:

“Even if the time-sharing system allowed the machine to respond to you in exactly the same way as it did in single user mode, you would just know that it wasn’t all yours. It would be like trying to make love to your wife, knowing she was simultaneously making love to six other people!”

Urgh.

Little Women – Louise May Alcott:

It’s a ‘classic’ that I missed out on when growing up. I do wonder what I would have thought of it had I read this when younger. It’s unlikely to make the list of books I recommend to my niece when she starts reading – as I found it a little preachy, Christian, and teaching us to learn to be good, well behaved and demure.

Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov:

I’ve long wanted to read this – and finally found a library copy – but sadly, my brain has been in too many dark places in recent months for this right now. The start was interesting, but I found myself holding back from all the characters in a way I’m not happy with. I’ll put this back on the shelf for the time being.

Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Omnibus – Arthur Conan Doyle:

I cannot say how much I loved this book. 5 stars.

Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control – Medea Benjamin:

If you are looking for a balanced book that  will give you the pros and cons of using drones in warfare – this isn’t it – written as it is by one of the co-founders of Code Pink. There were contradictions in the arguments at times (eg.as a remote pilot you can kill without remorse and you aren’t as affected because you are not in a war zone, but also the stress and impact of killing people must be high on remote pilots). However, it is an interesting easy-to-read primer on a topic that can be difficult to get to grips with. It did jump occasionally jumps between use of drones in a civilian and war backdrop a little quickly – and this could be confusing (deliberately so?), and didn’t contain quite enough references for my tastes, but a good read nonetheless. As with any book written to further an agenda  – I will be checking what I learned from it against other resources.

New Years Resolutions

Michelle BrookLeave a comment

2013 was, as some people will know, pretty tough for me. The first half of the year was filled with deaths, others being diagnosed with cancer, and a handful of attempted suicides. Then just in case I was planning to deal healthily with all the emotional ‘stuff’, I filled the latter half of the year with physical trauma – for instance half-blinding myself for a week. I also tore most of the ligaments in my right shoulder and collarbone at the beginning of December – which has still not quite healed. During December I also managed to injure my left wrist – and there were days that the arm not quite attached to my shoulder properly was the stronger of my two upper limbs, making the act of trying to do just about anything pretty tough.

Last year also saw a significant break-up, which seemed perfectly timed with a bunch of my London/UK based friends moving away (who needs moral support anyway?), a rather nasty sexual assault (which is part of the reason I hid for most of November), and a number of more comical but still awkward incidents like falling down most of Tooting Broadway escalator on my birthday when sober, and a bunch of other things that are too detailed or dark for a public blog post.

And despite going from situation to situation, all year – far more out of control than I would like – I achieved most of my work targets and my commitments. However, there were a couple of things both work wise and out of work that slipped more than I’d like, or I didn’t do as well as I’d have liked – and then being rather a self critical person, I beat myself up for messing up.

The period of introspection that November and December have forced upon me (while recovering from the sexual assault and the shoulder injury), has led me to create a couple of New Years Resolutions. They aren’t about specific numbers or goals – but instead broader ideas which I hope can change how I deal with the world occasionally.

1. Be kinder to myself.

I judge myself much harsher than I judge anyone else in my life. I get annoyed at myself for failing (which basically means not being perfect) and I get annoyed at myself for not knowing as much as I think I ought to – which is often defined by some of the most knowledgeable specialists around.

I need to get much better at remembering not to judge myself too harshly in comparison to others. And I need to get better at letting go of my idea of perfection. Most of the time, I haven’t actually messed up as badly as I think. And I need to be better at stopping myself getting into negative cycles. I have a really bad habit of not letting things go – and getting into a cycle of beating myself up for messing up at something, or not knowing something – and then beating myself up for beating myself up.

Yes, I fail occasionally. We all fail. But, one thing I need to remember much more is that it’s OK if I do. Instead, I should try and learn from it, try not to upset too many others by messing up, and then let it go. It seems that by doing that, I can actually not fail at the next thing as well. I also need to be better at recognising my own achievements.

2. Let myself be more vulnerable.

I have a habit of making sure I have things under control and not letting go enough, and while this is totally understandable given my past – this limits what I let myself do now. I’ve worked hard to get to a place where I feel safe in life, and even now there are enough small things that put me outside my comfort zone on a fairly regular basis.

3. Remember my friends better.

One thing I really learned in 2013 was that I’m surrounded by a bunch of really freaking awesome people – although it must be said, it’s not always the people I thought were there. There are a bunch of people who when there were some tough times, just stood next to me and gave me a cuddle. Or let me cry. Or gave me the keys to live in their empty house for three weeks. And, I want to make sure they know just how awesome they are.

I want to grow in ways that I can’t if I keep holding on to all of the control and keep being scared of failure.

This scares me. A lot.

The Politics of Hack Days

One of the big values of a hack day is taking datasets away from their original owners, and getting a bunch of tech-focused people to play about with them. You remove the preconceptions that the owner may hold about the data, and see what happens when a different group of people uses that set of information.

Michelle BrookLeave a comment

One of the big values of a hack day is taking datasets away from their original owners, and getting a bunch of tech-focused people to play about with them. You remove the preconceptions that the owner may hold about the data, and see what happens when a different group of people uses that set of information.

The direction taken in a hack day environment is a function of those present in the room, and the datasets provided. Both knowledge and values guide what an individual or group thinks to do with a given data set, and decisions are made about what other data sets are used as comparison or in combination, what context these data sets are placed in, what assumptions (both conscious and subconscious) are made, and how any outputs are visualised or understood.

If we want to produce non-partisan outputs, we need to balance as far as possible the political biases in the input provided – both in terms of data and expertise. And this means that the decisions made by hack day organisers in terms of who is providing guidance and which data sets are provided or pointed to shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Campaigning organisations are driven by particular political objectives, and this informs the questions they ask, and the data they chose to collect and subsequently release. We can’t (and shouldn’t) collect all data about every person, group or organisation. Even organisations which are attempting to be non-political will make value judgements about what is (and what isn’t) important data to collect. And this effect will be much stronger – both subconsciously and consciously – in datasets produced by campaigning organisations. Those with strong political objectives and ideologies will also suggest different things to do with a specific dataset.

Therefore, if you run a non-partisan high-profile hack day focusing on critical analysis of Government, it might be prudent to not have this event partly sponsored by a right-wing small-state lobby group, unless you balance this. It might be wise to ensure you have an equal and opposite force with similar prominence in the room, providing guidance and datasets.

I’m not saying exclude guidance and datasets from those with strong political ideology. In fact, to ensure disruptive outcomes, you want to ensure you have many strong views in a room.

However, if the aim of your hack day is to produce something useful and informed by the widest amount of information available, you want to ensure these influences are balanced and diverse.

It can’t be that hard.