MinneBar and the Organization of Conventions

I would love to attend MinneBar but sadly I've had a conflict both this year and last year. But one of the things that interests me is that at least for me, the nature of how we try to do programming at the science fiction convention CONvergence is not that far off of the BarCamp philosophy.

Obviously, unlike a BarCamp there is a membership fee for CONvergence -- and if you haven't registered, now is the time to do so -- but that's because we aren't sponsored by organizations and companies in the same way either. We're renting the space, buying the food, flying in and putting up the guests of honor. We're also fund-raising for our non profit -- sending authors and scientists to schools, supporting our community in both the narrow and larger sense.

An event like a BarCamp is mainly scheduled collaboratively online by the participants -- it's user-driven and built by the people attending it. That's different from some other conferences where the event may be packaged by some corporate sponsor and you have people in the audience and the people on stage.

And as I look at this, I see that we have a similar sort of programming philosophy at CONvergence in a lot of ways, and did before the BarCamp phenomena really started -- we certainly encourage our membership to present and participate in programming. It's not identical -- we have a little bit more centralization and formal scheduling -- but I certainly find this sort of method a good way to do it for the more informal type of events like this.

Even as we bring in outside professionals and expect our programming to be organized ahead of the event -- so we can make it accessible and organized -- we certainly try to have it so our program in proposed and filled out by people that volunteer for events.

This is certainly a bit different from how some other sf events might do it -- while we do dig up panelists, and invite people to sit particular events -- the expectation is that most of the event is participant-driven.

One of the complaints I hear from time to time is that "CONvergence doesn't have moderators" -- and certainly I don't think the programming department should always be dictating who the moderators actually are -- but I would certainly encourage any panel to have a moderator. But that's really something that can be decided on a panel-by-panel level, and shouldn't (and with several hundred panels, realistically can't) be addressed by a programming head in many cases. That's the sort of thing that can --and to some extent, really should -- really be driven by the participants.

I suppose there is always some degree of overlap between technology and SF Conventions -- but I think sometimes it's not even as overt as Penguincon does it...

Lock-in

Garrick van Buren's thoughts about how Free & Open Is Its Own Lock-in triggered some of my own thoughts about lock-in that have been going in my head for a while about lock-in.

The simple fact is, we always are locked in to some extent -- we learn a tool set, or a technology, and we want to continue to use it. And we don't want to throw away an investment of years.

I've primarily been developing on the Microsoft platform for most of my post-collegiate career. And we're locked into Microsoft technology all the time -- C#, VB.Net, Microsoft Office, or SQL Server. There are downsides to that, as well as positive sides.

It is tempting to go and say that there would be no lock in if you were in the Linux utopia and then not be sharecropping. And that may be true from a developer perspective -- but the final end user, in most cases, won't be a person with a software development background. And they're really going to be more "locked in" to what their software providers give them in any case.

So unless you're constantly willing to develop and maintain all of the software yourself as an individual --- and very few organizations are willing or able to do that. You're going to outsource pieces of your IT infrastructure. From Operating Systems, to office productivity tools, to database management systems, to enterprise applications like ERP, CRM, Financial Software, or whatever -- organizations are going to have someone else built those pieces. And they should. And as most people aren't devloping software for themselves, but they're devloping it for other people, they're dependent on other people for their work. And you can always have the land whipped out from under you.

It is the investment of energy and effort learning how a tool works, understanding the quirks that any system has -- that's the real lock-in. So perhaps one thing is to focus on the pieces that make something unique -- how can you get to a solution for your unique problem as quickly as possible? It might need to go away eventually -- and so can you built what you need as high on the stack as possible? You want to find ways to be as agile as possible, to use the buzzword in the general sense -- how can you get to a result quickly?

---

In a related observation, I realized what much of this conversation reminded me of. It's like the work-for-hire debates that I've seen in the comic book industry, especially from people like Dave Sim or the founders of Image Comics. It's perhaps especially relevant as we look at what happens with the the rights related to Superman. I think some of the issues related to lock-in here are similar to the decisions to self-publish or do work-for-hire work in comics. Work-for-hire is really what we're talking about here -- but it is also what most of us are going to end up doing, most of the time, and is frequently what you want to do. To use the comics comparison, if you want to work on an established character, you're not going to have complete control over the situation.

Licensing On Demand

I'm a fan of the Salesforce.com platform, which is really moving beyond just the CRM and Sales applications in capabilities -- but I think the licensing is one of the more challenging pieces, especially considering that some people would use an application very rarely. So I'm interested to read that Salesforce adds a per login pricing option. I can certainly see the appeal of that sort of thing, especially if you want to have something where a wide variety of people use an online application very rarely, but you still want to take advantage of the platform.

It'll be very interesting to see how this develops. We'll see a variety of things like this, especially as the types of computers have change --- browser based computing seems to make more and more sense as we see things like iPhones, Blackberrys, MacBook Air, multiple OS environments, and so on.

Use The Force

Considering George Lucas is going to be speaking at next week's Dreamforce conference, the title was inevitable for a post about what Salesforce.com has going on.

I'm of course very interested in seeing more about how Salesforce Enters Custom Application Market With Force.com -- I've been using Salesforce.com as part of my job for a while, and I've generally been a fan of the tool, and a believer that they can replace things that might live in a Microsoft Access database today, and many of the small little databases and applications that exist in most organizations.

Obviously, a big question is the total cost of ownership -- people are used to buying software once, and then maybe upgrading every few years. And with the rise of more and more open source software, much software can also be done for free.

There's always a bit of a lock-in -- but there's always a degree of "lock-in" for a lifecycle of a process, and converting from an old system to a new system is hard -- and every new system will become an old system in time. Even something like an open-source system like Linux will lock you into regularly having a Linux expert around.

I'm especially intrigued to see that in some of the promotional materials that have already started to leak out about force.com that we're seeing the "not-ready-for-the-Enterprise" iPhone used as an input device. That may be attaching itself to a technology sexy device -- but part of me would expect to see a BlackBerry as a more logical front end.

And I suspect the same tools that they're demonstrating will also work with the BlackBerry -- perhaps taking over their existing Mobile applications, in the same way that I expect that Google Gears could replace the offline edition as well.

Fandom's OS Distribution

One of the more interesting questions came up as part of last weekend's CONvergence committee meeting. As I mentioned as I started to look at building a SF Convention IT Infrastructure, one of the biggest challenges in working with a non-profit volunteer organization like a science fiction convention is that you have a variety of different operating systems amongst the people working on it, and unlike a business environment, there's very little centralized control over what sorts of systems that people have.

I was interested in seeing that about 25 percent of the people attending the committee meeting were Macintosh users, with the rest being Windows users. I was surprised that there were only 1 or 2 people that were primarily Linux users; I would have expected to see that higher than average.

My biggest take away is how much you'd like to build systems that can handle multiple OSes -- a department like programming should ideally work where the heads don't need to be running a particular operating system in order to handle the data needs of their department.

I'm curious how our percentages compare to other convention committees, both locally and around the country -- that's a higher percentage of Mac users than generally reported on in the general population, but that is really difficult to be sure about.

Building a SF Convention IT Infrastructure

I've worked on CONvergence for nearly a decade now, and one of the things that I'm now looking at is the information technology needs for a science fiction convention (and also for the related nonprofit)

Unsurprisingly, the SF community is filled with IT professionals -- it is perhaps the most common job category. But then you also have a wide variety of skill sets -- people that are partisans about one sort of technology or another.

You have several departments in a typical convention that might have a need for some sort of data storage need -- convention and organization membership is the first, but then you also have your programming and other event schedules, your art show, and your dealers' room.

You have two environments as well -- you have the environment of 360 or so days a year, where the convention staff is geographically diverse, and unlike a business environment, there's no way to really dictate what sort of operating system people may use. The other 3 or 4 days you are all at the same location -- but it's an environment that you set up there, and in some situations may have need to get at that data at all hours.

One of the other challenges is that your available pool of skills is limited to what you can have for free -- but that means that you don't really want to make something that requires very specialized skills. You need something that just about anyone with IT skills can pick up.

Technology really helps the modern convention -- I can't imagine how this would have been done in the era before e-mail. But many of the pieces in place right now are frequently of the personal computer era; using Microsoft Office applications like Excel and Access. To go buzzword happy -- and as such I deserve serious abuse -- what is the Web 2.0 convention IT architecture for a Science Fiction convention?

Right now I mainly have questions, and don't yet have answers.