<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/2/21 9:14 pm, James Iseppi via
CBR2021 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7E075ABD-BCEE-45A7-B9F4-7872E4817A7D@iseppi.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Rob,
While I didn’t attend the entire meeting, from what I gathered the majority of the people attending wanted to do a Hybrid conference, while their were only two (yourself included) that said that we should not. From that perspective, I think we as the presumptive team need some convincing that what LA and yourself are proposing (an online only event) is something we want to run.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I feel this is another way of essentially stating the reason that
we didn't run LCA 2021: that this team signed on with the vision
to bring to Canberra a physical conference with physical
attendees.<br>
</p>
<p>Let me throw some of my ideas as to why I think aiming for a
hybrid conference, if not a physical-only conference, is possible
and reasonable.</p>
<ul>
<li>On the pandemic point: Immunisations have started in USA, UK,
Australia, and many other countries. They have ten months
before delegates would have to be here, and five months before
we have to announce the actual format of the conference and
start seeking keynotes and presenters. I feel that's plenty of
time for a majority of the population to be immunised and to
provide herd immunity to prevent further spread of SARS-CoV-2.</li>
<li>Every other LCA has been physical - and almost all have
basically been physical <u>only</u> - i.e. no live streams, no
questions taken from online forums; the online presence has
mostly been stuff that the conference itself <u>hasn't</u>
organised. It is that precedent that I'd like to follow. <br>
</li>
<li>No other LCA has ever been seen to suffer from not having a
'hybrid' format and requiring physical presence to enjoy. It
has never been seen to be a lack, and though a few conferences
have organised a few online events (CtF games, blog
competitions, etc.) they have never been required - either by LA
or the organisers.</li>
<li>The online presence is always a distant second to being in
person. No body language, no verbal or non-verbal cues, and the
inability to easily find small groups of friends or other
interesting people to talk to all make virtual conferences
complicated at best and draining at worst. I think the fact
that - despite not having to spend anywhere near the travel
budget and speakers from literally anywhere in the world being
available to talk - LCA this year was a three day and not a five
day event says a lot about how unattractive the online-only
format is.</li>
<li>That said, the Venueless system that LA chose was excellent in
comparison to others I've heard of and provided a good range of
ways to people to interact and socialise virtually. The
presentation system did well and had relatively few glitches and
speakers drop out (though there were a few). As a tool for a
hybrid conference experience I think this is a good one.<br>
</li>
<li>To return to the pandemic point: In five months, if we
announce a 'hybrid' conference people can pick and choose
whether they will attend in person or online. People will
decide at their own personal level whether they want to go for a
virtual conference experience of a physical one - some may make
that choice very late (though I'd imagine we'll have a deadline
and will offer cheaper virtual than present ticket prices). And
if we have to turn it into a virtual-only conference because of
a fresh outbreak of Peruvian Krutt, we would still have all the
technology in place to deliver this well. If we decide on a
virtual-only conference format and it looks like COVID-19 is
quelled by mid July then the event will flop (IMO).</li>
<li>So I think that the choice of hybrid keeps our options open
for a highly anticipated LCA in person with online attendance
added as a bonus, and choosing a virtual-only conference limits
us to something no more successful than LCA this year (which,
IMO, was about a 6/10).</li>
</ul>
<p>That's my thinking so far. Happy to hear other people's
opinions!</p>
<p>HTH,</p>
<p>Paul</p>
</body>
</html>