Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of internet_rights_workshop/specification

Timestamp:

Sep 16, 2008, 7:19:24 PM (17 years ago)

Author:

Daniel Kahn Gillmor

Comment:

--

internet_rights_workshop/specification

@@ -56 +56 @@
  * There is a presenter in each Room capable of speaking the languages of the participants in that Room.
  * 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.
- * The presenters give a basic outline of the exercise in person to the participants, and solicit N/5 Scribes.
- * 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.
- * Non-scribes count off, from 0 to (N/5-1), and physically re-locate to form small clusters around each scribe.
+ * The presenters give a basic outline of the exercise to the participants, and solicit N/5 Scribes.  Scribes should be comfortable working with a simple web application interface.
+ * All scribes are set up with terminals (laptops?), 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 identity (number?  color?  icon?).
+ * Non-scribes count off, and physically re-locate to form small clusters around each scribe.
  * 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."  
- * 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.
- * Once the whole room sees the revision (and the new endorsement), the game is on!
+ * 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 them to ask their group to ask their scribe to make the change.
+ * Once the whole room sees the resulting revision (and the new endorsement), the game is on!
  * 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?)
+ * During the time that the Rights are under development, the rooms can get pretty hectic.  Presenters should stay alert, and occasionally do a circuit of the room, listening to the discussions, and observing if any Scribe is having technical difficulty.  Presenters should help troubleshoot if problems do come up.
  * When the time is up, the presenter should read out the resulting Rights, along with the number of endorsers.
  * There should be a significant amount of time remaining in the Workshop after the clock has run out to have discussion among the participants.