[Chennaipy] Talks for the next meetup

[Shrikant Giridhar]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:00:44AM +0530, Vijay Kumar wrote:
> I am not sure of this. If we want to get down to the details, let's do it
> as a workshop. For me, "full length" talks are half cooked. Here are
> the problems:

I believe the effectiveness of a full-length talk depends, in no small
part, on how the talk is spread out. As long as the content-duration
ratio is optimum and the paced well, full-length talks are as
entertaining and informative, if not more, than lightning talks.

>   1. With a large audience, not everybody might be interested in the topic.

This is generally true.

However, provided we restrict the talk topics to a carefully chosen subset,
this shouldn't be too big of a problem. It would not be too unreasonable,
for example, to assume that someone attending a Python User Group meetup
is interested in learning something about unicode support in Python 3, even
if they do not have to regularly deal with the troubles of handling multiple
languages.

>   2. Not everybody might have the required background to understand the
>      talk.

This is an issue primarily with lightning talks. By their very nature,
lightning talks assume that you are up to speed in the topic the speaker
intends to talk about. There is little to no time for review or to
build up to the main issue the speaker wants to highlight.

The only consolation for the befuddled members of the audience in such
cases might be in the knowledge that the talk will end in 10 minutes. :-)

I think this should count as a point *for* fuller talks and not against them.

>   3. Not all speakers are proficient, and not many can keep the audience
>      attentive throughout.

This. Delivering a proper talk is difficult, to understate it. There are
too many variables to get right and even the best speakers make horrible
mistakes. Not many are capable of handling the stage well for a longer
duration of time and it will dissuade a large group of people from
attempting this.

On the other hand, this is exactly where lightning talks shine. The
shorter format is perfect for polishing your presentation skills and
experimentation with the style and content of the talks. I feel novice
speakers can make use of the shorter format to hone their skills and
then 'graduate' to the longer ones when they're comfortable enough.

>   4. In general, the attention span of the human brain is only 10-15 min.
>      So anything after that is just a waste of time and energy.

This doesn't sound a strong enough reason against the longer format.

Plus, this largely depends on how you define 'full length' talks. A talk
lasting 20-25 minutes is not that longer than a 10-15 minute talk and
they seem very effective (TED Talks are 18 minutes in duration but they
abstract away all the technical details).

I agree, however, that full length talks demand more conscious attention
than the 10 minute ones we have now. But I tend to see that as a good
thing. I don't know how many agree. :-)

> > With workshops most of these problems are negated.

Workshops have their place but in my opinion, they are not a substitute
for meetup talks.

>   1. Only people with interested and the required background attend.

Not everyone, however interested, might have time to attend a longer
length workshop. Besides, some topics are not amenable to the workshop
format. Say a speaker wishes to discuss a the proposed language changes
in a new Python version. The talk would exceed the duration of a typical
lightning talk but naturally can't be extended into a full-blown
workshop.

>   2. Since workshop will be hands-on and interactive, speaker proficiency
>      will be secondary.

Workshops require a speaker with authoritative knowledge and far more
convincing power than a casual meetup speaker. Not everyone can walk
into a workshop, however familiar with the language, and start teaching.

This is especially true if the audience consists of people new to the
subject, which is usually the case in workshops.

I'll agree that full talks challenge the speaker too but that demands
they pose lasts for a shorter period and can be mitigated by being
comfortable with a narrow subset of the field that you're going to cover
in the talk.

>   3. The attention span problem will not hit workshops, since it is going
>      be hands-on and interactive.

This is an issue and one that we can work around by regulating the
duration of the talks. I think starting off with a middle ground of
20-25 minute talks which are carefully chosen could be a viable option.

One talk per meetup seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps prospective
speakers could put up their proposals and we could have a vote? Shrayas'
proposal seems doable. I think we can start there.

Just my 2 cents. Although, at almost a hundred lines this is starting to
look more like weighing in with a dollar. :-)


Shrikant Giridhar