MetaMeets Dublin 2010 just completed and was by almost every measure a complete success. Measures of success included attendance, content, audience satisfaction, speaker satisfaction, and impact on digital virtual environment activities and plans to come.
So what else could MetaMeets 2010 Dublin have possibly provided?
First, understand the background:
. I am an ontological consultant, where “ontological” means the study of being (look it up).
. I am an advocate of entrepreneurship as an expression of self actualization, where “self actualization” means the motive to realize all of one’s potentialities (including enterprise as well as individual).
. I am committed to people having the opportunity to REACH each other with their individual genius.
. I am committed to apply and improve technologies and structural organization that ensure people being able to DELIVER and BE HEARD.
. Why? Because what people say, matters.
Areas for Improvement
So I ask the question: What was missing from MetaMeets 2010, like a POSSIBILITY, that, provided, would have made EVEN MORE of a difference? I see three areas for improvement, in this modern, mixed mode, mixed reality, environment where people may now connect live and remotely:
- Unified consideration of audience. From the beginning, we had two audiences, who deserved to be treated more uniformly:
- The first was the LOCAL audience – people attending who had to travel to get to the conference, who were NOT familiar with digital virtual environment worlds nor the concept of remote speakers and audiences.
- The second was the REMOTE audience – people attending who logged in from their computers, who were NOT familiar with local speakers and institutions in Dublin, Ireland.
- Unified consideration of speakers. From the beginning, we had multiple speakers, who deserved to be treated more uniformly:
- The first were LOCAL speakers – people presenting, who had to travel to get to the conference, who were NOT always familiar with the concept of speaking effectively to remote as well as local audiences for maximum impact.
- The second were REMOTE speakers – people presenting who logged in from their computers, who were NOT always familiar with the concept of speaking effectively to live as well as remote audiences for maximum impact.
- Unified consideration of content delivery technology. From the beginning, we had two content delivery technologies, which deserved to be integrated more smoothly:
- The first was the LOCAL video and audio capture technology – making sure the local audience could see and hear both local and remote speakers well, and vice versa.
- The second was the REMOTE video and audio streaming technology – making sure the remote audience could see and hear both local and remote speakers well, and vice versa.
- Improved interaction between audience and speakers, local and remote. Although we had some ability to capture and respond to questions from both audiences, the ability was not uniform across all sessions.
On the OPPORTUNITY side, there were many links in the origination and delivery and reception chain that can be improved by simple tweaks in technology and organization. On the PLUS side, never mind my “what’s missing” notes, MetaMeets Dublin 2010 was received extremely well. The lessons learned from this year’s effort will be put to work IMMEDIATELY in events to come.
In fact, just do a Google search on “metameets,” or a Twitter search on “”#metameets,” and you’ll see a growing plethora of content and discussion.
MetaMeets Dublin 2010 sought to “change the energy” (conversation) of Digital Virtual Environment use in Europe and worldwide, and it has already succeeded, with much more to come.