Welcome to Etherpad!

This pad text is synchronized as you type, so that everyone viewing this page sees the same text. This allows you to collaborate seamlessly on documents!

Get involved with Etherpad at http://etherpad.org
Nicolas:
running marathon, long performance, physical
nice atmosphere, good mix. work+meeting people
interesting context to meet people
double: events put a lot of pressure but also very exciting, ex. Recyclart, debate...
-> algorithm performances worked well to understand what it could lead to to look at algorithms in different ways 'why we do all this?'

Concerts : should be someone external
Debate: worked well thanks to Seda, who prepared, mediated -> preparation discussion could have taken place in the workshop
3 was a bit much
-> we could have worked differently with the musicians 
-- their music was not very interesting, big gap between description of background of his work & the music
-- alexandra had opportunity to come to workshop, but did not come; only asked for a file
missed connection with context
An: should have handed this part over to someone with experience :-)
Yves was ready to take this on, with Jonathan & friends, but tournee in France
Chaton
http://constantvzw.org/vj12/spip.php?article53
http://pad.constantvzw.org/group.html/23/pad.html/g.dkcKKouO73h1pPMf$Constant%20meeting%20150218
--> if we want music, needs to be worked on
there is a lot of superficial work done with correlations & music

Guests
AL: caught in the crossfire, trying to explain techniques & being critized for 'defending' them -> discuss where the critique should go
this kind of encounter is super interesting, but how to make sure this stays 'cared for'
Kim W: she was beyond any boundaries, last minute proposal, no time to prepare beforehand
-> we had enough people to present, 
Guy DP: he was provided with necessary information, and still decided to make this presentation - we're rarely confronted with people who think commercially (vs free software, vegetarian, feminist...); his examples pushed political questions immediately, could it have been 'better' with an introduction the first day?

ratio presenters/time to work hard to find
2nd week was more easy to define what we wanted to work on
1st week we needed a lot of help from people with all kind of knowledges - too ambitious?
TTIP / disagreement for next dossier? no 'urge'
visualising algorithms / materialize algorithms seems more 'accessible'? active archives is more and more about how the algorithm is performed by the machine, already unfolding
-> danger to esthetizise this, algorithms are operating in specific contexts, due to economic rules (without mechanical turks, no machine learning)


Find people who want to work together previously
what is expectation?
- discussion?
- make something? is a way to get people involved
what about the size? put energies somewhere else?

Find a way to get people present their work more:
- Robert
- Karin
- Martin Howse
---

R - software presentation was nice
-> we could have focussed on R all week?

++
- amount of structured data that is produced by EU, does not solve anything, waiitng to be used; questions of classification 'nomenclatura': based on human choices, labour 
- critical discussions & actions on Pattern
- realise the materiality of it

--
we did not talk enough about what a 'correlation'/cqrrelation is :-)
txt is proliferating differently * 

Documentation
collection of notes/scripts/pictures/documents....
export it from gitorious... to where?
* look at the pads, look for interesting threads
* develop further with/without participants?
* idea to make a spreadsheet website!!! play with the material // different ways to go through material
-> avoid authorative perspective on the material
-> repository of cqrrelations at constant/gitlab
https://about.gitlab.com/

http://aporee.org/equator/

• Evaluation Genderblending/Cqrrelations

Femke online 10:30

An :
Here are some of my thoughts, that I wrote down as a preparation:
*  Overall positive for a first experience (for me), spending a week with  an engaged group allows for multiple exploring and reflection on a  topic. I came out differently :-)

* Overtime some elements are coming to the surface, like : 
-  the importance of the selection of the participants, it is the most  difficult and essential part. It happens parallel to constructing the  program and for that, peter and me having only started in June, first 
with  François then with Nicolas and Martino, did feel as too late. I think  it turned out well in the end, although I keep wondering to what extend  participants that have a thorough practice , expertise and vision (Kate,  Martin Howse, maxigas . ..) lived it. But then rybn was very very happy. ..
Maybe  the question would be: how to integrate their practise better. In that  way Kates database was a good example of a investing a totally different  db but Martins and maxigas. stayed invisible

PW:  preparations a bit messy, a wave. Shared between many people, sometimes  lost track. struggle to mix profiles, how to do that. Mis-match between  efforts of 'externals' (ie Karin; she just did a lecture) but Hans was  great, but came by accident.
FS: yes, seems necessary to think about how to use contribs by participants well.
MM:  groups were solid and nice. Not much time to prepare what to work on  with participants. Different  with GB there were projects already  running. With Karin, she presented the only outside urgency (sorry, not  clear)
PW: cqrrelatiosn did not exist as a group, interest beforehand
FS: But i think it has created a group/urgency so that is important too, but means cmake space for follow-up at some time.
Genderblending  was easier thanks to the connection to L-festival, Pink Screen, Zeljko;  the harder was the connection to Blender. Both the worksessions are  long termprojects at the end, because we open many doors and there are  going to be follow up. It is important for the dossier 2017-21. They're   a start of something.
we have to think how to proceed with this
PW:  doesn't agree. Time and experience ... trust that people find their way  if they think it is relevant. Confidence that the group is ok, also if  not registered etc. 
DP: people for two weeks is hard. only a few can do that
PW: a week seems two short as well...maybe something in between : 7 days?
DP: Piet Zwart students! 
FS: Cqrrelations that was much more abstract, was more attractive for PZ students, while GB was 'too much' focused as a projection screen for student work
PW:  public evenings not work well for both sessions; the only successfull  one was the one in deburen (about 100 people), but it was more prepared,  thanks also to cpdp and deburen.
FS: Was there a post-evaluation with De Buren?
DP: yes, but no with the director :-) Janny and the team were super enthusiast about us :-))) Let's see who will folow him up!
FS: Next workspace will be Foam, so quite different: public will be not expected, even not wanted.

-  the balance between what we wanted to do (the invitation text) and what  we finally did. ...This needs a separate content evaluation meeting  with Nicolas as well.
FS:  for me, week 2 was excellent though sometimes hard in invited guests,  and how to respond. But that was an experience too; learned a lot.

-  I have the impression that the formula of two weeks with different  approaches works well in the end. It allows for a deep bath. Although it  is intense and it should be followed by holidays in my case (this is a  note to myself in the first place: transmediale and botopera were great,  but I hit my limits, and as it seems I still not have recovered  entirely)

-  in terms of workload I think it is important to mention that from  August onwards I only worked on this, booksprint, general constant stuff  and botopera. No Christmas holidays. that is 5 months. I know I'm quite  slow for this type of things but best kept I mind if some kind of work  session template is constructed
* production wise, lodging wise, catering wise, deburen policy wise I think it went smooth. Thanks Dona !
DP:  I was scared, but it worked well. The apartments were good. Think about  kitchen, De Buren was hard/too small for 40 people. Next time: Foam :-D  Guillaume: more than 40 is too much in this type of set-up.

* the debate was fantastic thanks to seda
FS:  for second week, the public event worked very well (did not like how it  went in GB: too much effort, too little effect; no interesting failure)
We  don't have to feel obliged to do a public evening, the straght of the  worksession is that it is a worksession (that brings also public in a  way to the place where we work).
The exhibition in GB on the other hand worked very well.
PW: Recyclart more parallel to what we wanted from Public Archive in GB? Worked as an interface, entry-point. 
More  open (FS: and produces many ideas for a follow-up. Working at the  moment on 2nd version, 'Possible Bodies'. Not sure yet where ... trying  to use the DE connections here ;-))

*  recyclart and the data concerts felt a bit weird, recyclart because it  was too familiar (program and audience , data concerts because it was  too alien
PW: Concerts were weird. FS: Liked that there was a party, lets invest in DJ next time? Or an air gun ;-) Yesssss

FS:  on-line Platforms + archives: talk of a publication? Where are the  archives (of debate?) Publish gitorious address somewhere, not just on  mailinglist (internal)?
PW:  Michael published all the documents on gitorious. Peter is uploading  the videos. He will forward the links. To be added to the website.
DP: The plan is to do a publication (there is more money than expected for it).
FS: I think a publication is still far off. We can not redo a VJ14 publication again, because the material is very different; presentations are not the central material. It should be discussed what to do with it, maybe in a different way. I'm thinking of a follow up of GB as an exhibition but it takes a lot of time. 
M: material from CQ are sketches, discussions, ideas, nothing ready for a publicaiton yet (not obvious what this publication would be?)
A notebook of sketches ... or a follow-up worksession before even going there?

A meeting between An, Martino, Nicolas to discuss and brainstorm what to do with the material.

PW: it worked very well
MM:  thought we needed a worksession before the worksession, between  Constants, how to introduce subjects. Like how to introduce,  contextualise presentations. What the status of the presentations was.  Tension, but was difficult to know how to respond; what did we mean to  bring by f/e Guy de Pauw?
WvW: Controversy was interesting?
PW:  Still painful. Has to do with way we prepare? Could have prevented  [what?]. Wants to know beforehand who is/takes responsible for what. Try  to take more time in contextualising contributions. 
FS:  It can fail, also - worksessions are also about testing connections,  problematic relations so we can expect more painful disconnects. Just  finding ways to be prepared, as a team to make context.
MM:  Need to be prepared for unexpected things to come up. This is a work.  Preparations is also feeling out different positions and expectations.
Do not undervalue spreadssheets