| 51 | | |
| | 51 | |
| | 52 | == Workflow == |
| | 53 | |
| | 54 | Below is a proposed workflow that has never been executed quite this way at an actual Workshop (as of 2008-09, anyway). |
| | 55 | |
| | 56 | * There is a presenter in each Room capable of speaking the languages of the participants in that Room. |
| | 57 | * The presenters in a room get a rough count the number of participants in that room, let's call it N. The exercise seems to work well when groups are composed of roughly 5 people. This means that there should be ~N/5 Groups in the Room. |
| | 58 | * The presenters give a basic outline of the exercise in person to the participants, and solicit N/5 Scribes. |
| | 59 | * All scribes are set up with terminals, connected to the network, and ensure that they can see the central server. They are asked to distribute themselves evenly around the physical space in the room, and given signs to display associated with their group's number. |
| | 60 | * Non-scribes count off, from 0 to (N/5-1), and physically re-locate to form small clusters around each scribe. |
| | 61 | * The presenter manually injects an initial Right, and points out how it shows up on the board, asking if there are any questions. It's probably a good idea to make this "starter Right" absurd, so that it doesn't shape what people think they "should" be including. For instance, "Only peopl who eat cheese should be allowed on the Internet." |
| | 62 | * Usually, someone in the audience will complain about the mistake (the missing "e" in peopl), or about the absurdity of the proposition. (if this doesn't happen, it should be easy to solicit such a remark from the audience by asking if anyone sees a misspelling). The presenter asks the complainer what it should say instead (pointing out that they can change not just spelling, but content), and asks their scribe to make the change. |
| | 63 | * Once the whole room sees the revision (and the new endorsement), the game is on! |
| | 64 | * The presenters in each room should make it clear how much time is left with verbal announcements. Announcing 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, and 30 seconds seems to work OK. (perhaps the board should display this as well?) |
| | 65 | * When the time is up, the presenter should read out the resulting Rights, along with the number of endorsers. |
| | 66 | * There should be a significant amount of time remaining in the Workshop after the clock has run out to have discussion among the participants. |
| | 67 | |
| | 68 | == Discussion Questions == |
| | 69 | |
| | 70 | Presenters in each room should encourage discussion afterwards, first by simply asking "does anyone have any comments about what just happened?" |
| | 71 | |
| | 72 | If people are shy, some leading questions can be useful: |
| | 73 | |
| | 74 | * Were there any Rights you were surprised to see come up? Which ones? Why were they surprising? |
| | 75 | * Did you change your mind about anything during the workshop? What about? |
| | 76 | * How did your group make decisions about what to do? Did the scribe do what you expected? |
| | 77 | * What frustrated you about the experience? Why? |
| | 78 | * Did you wish the process worked differently? How would you prefer it to work? Why? |
| | 79 | * What is the relationship between the process you just participated in and the larger Internet as a whole? |
| | 80 | * We decided the rules for this exercise when we planned the workshop. Who decides the rules in the larger Internet? Why? |
| | 81 | |
| | 82 | == History == |
| | 83 | |
| | 84 | As of September 2008, we have only done this exercise such that: |
| | 85 | * R = 10 (10 rights allowed total) |
| | 86 | * L = 1 (all workshops have been in english) |
| | 87 | * The number of participants in each Group has ranged in size from 3(?) to 8(?) |
| | 88 | * The total number of participants in each Workshop has ranged from ?? to ?? |
| | 89 | * The total number of Rooms in the workshop has always been 1 |
