[Hacker-event-theory] turning feedback from ohm into learning points

Rejo Zenger rejo at zenger.nl
Sun Apr 6 22:28:04 CEST 2014

++ 05/04/14 18:36 -0400 - Nick Farr:
>> Wondering: why remote?
>Because then it's just another conference where people come and go.
>The camp is special partially because you're on the same field for a week
>with everyone else. It's an equalizing factor in many ways.

That's an interesting observation.

To me this is different: I get this feeling because other reason, 
probably most notably "atmosphere". So, when the atmosphere is right, I 
have the feeling of being on completely different planet (for over a 
week, with N-thousands of others). 

When volunteering at the IFFR, I was off the planet for one and half 
week, just because everything I needed was available at the venues where 
the IFFR was taking place. Even when I had to change from one venue to 
another (in the center of a large city), it still felt like being in 
another world with many like-minded. 

The same goes for CCC Camp and, to a lesser extend, the CCC Congress: 
even when located near a larger village or in the center of a big city, 
I haven't left the premisses a lot - just for getting some sleep at the 

In other words: not it's remoteness but it's atmosphere makes it a 
special place. Hence I think the remoteness is less important, but 
whether it is attractive or not (e.g. CCC Camp was successful with it's 
hangars and old planes and lights, OHM was less attractive). 

>If it was an office with printers and networks that always work and staff
>that went through an orientation, I'd be prone to agree.
>However, it's the camp. Go simple if you can. Trust me, it's way less work
>(and better for the auditors) for the finance crew to enter the data from a
>handwritten scan than to correct the guesswork of a someone who may have
>never filled out a reimbursement request.

Well, that may be right. My aim, however, is to avoid having to enter 
all those reimbursement request afterwards. If it's not the one who is 
doing the request, then at least have others entering the data into some 
system right away. 

And, with the two step-process (submit a request for review, get the 
reimbursement after the review has taken place), may allow for an 
additional step if the submitter has made mistakes filling out the form 
(and the mistakes are to big to fix in a second by the reviewer).

[programm changes]
>However, you should not do the epic rearranging that went on during OHM.


Rejo Zenger
E rejo at zenger.nl  P +31(0)639642738  W https://rejo.zenger.nl  T @rejozenger
PGP 1FBF 7B37 6537 68B1 2532  A4CB 0994 0946 21DB EFD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/hacker-event-theory/attachments/20140406/8e255fb3/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Hacker-event-theory mailing list