B. Selection process
1. Fact: We did not categorize the offers into “difficulty” level, whereas in the first one we did.
Opinion: I think this was because we did not have many alternatives. But this should help people be aware of their “two hours” limit…
2. Fact: We voted for the most popular ones [same as first one].
Opinion: Makes it easy for people to change their session if they don’t the one they have.
3. Fact: Hosts are volunteered; they did not have to be the person who offered.
Opinion: Sessions missing the person who offered the subject sometimes suffered from “why we had this session”, but helped people to nativagate to any related subject they want to go on.
4. Fact: We removed the post-its and stick them onto the doors.
Opinion: Removing post-its from the wall posting to the doors is an agile thinking way I believe, and I like the flexibility. However, we can have bigger post-its, so that we can write host names on them as well.
5. Fact: Some sessions were the same as the old one:
Opinion: We should be asking/telling that we had a similar session last time, telling about benefits
6. Fact: We did not question/eliminate the offered subjects
Opinion: The session I was in was IoC, and it was a wonderful discussion. However, now I feel like it is more proper for an altnet topic…Maybe, the name “OpenSpaceCode” needs some filter on the subjects?

C. Sessions:
1. Fact: Wireless connection setup took some time.
Opinion: This could have been on main first room, at least a small demo, since the guide was a bit confusing…Instead of saying “create a new wireless network”, it could say “add a wireless network connection from wireless network connection properties”, easy?
Since each time, this event is welcoming more and more people, being more direct can help, and assuming next it can be another place…
1. Fact: For some sessions, installation was the session.
Opinion: Yes, it is a way of learning, but preparing yourself for the tool, and not being able to touch it makes you disappointed. To increase usability, an installation package [or a tool like hornget] can be useful.
If these sessions were hold monthly, then the group could benefit from the previous sessions
2. Fact: There was no PowerPoint.
Opinion: Loved the “sharing” and involving part.
3. Fact: The rules applied and there is no expectation from the sessions.
Opinion: This is sad. There was an ultimate goal, having checked the source code into google.code.
I would rather keep the pace slow and give a chance to at least two people checking the code in.
[Still not sure, if everyone knows that they a have Google code account or how to use it, [and yes they are developers, they are clever people…]]
4. Fact: Finding out what to build is hard.
Opinion: We can have volunteers to write some projects, or to search proper/alternative projects from openspace, so that we can start with that example, and modify it through our goal.
We can have a session/day for looking at openspace projects and discuss which ones can be useful…
And refactoring can be another session who wants to enjoy.