Read on Twitter
I was going to write something in response to @mathbabedotorg& #39;s post about WAGON, but I didn& #39;t want to be a downer. So thanks to @MKlyachman for speaking up... I should have done so. https://twitter.com/littmath/status/1252433507751653376">https://twitter.com/littmath/...
I& #39;ll start with: WAGON was great! The talks were great, even though I didn& #39;t completely follow a lot of the time (not a real algebraic geometer... @JSEllenberg made some chat comment about rational points vs derived categories & I& #39;m definitely a rational points girl).
But, the tables... I did the following: I mostly joined tables organized by people I knew. And when I was there I mostly talked to people I knew. And where did I know these people from? Other in-person conferences where we met & got to know each other.
Many of the tables started with "let& #39;s introduce ourselves." But then if someone came in a few minutes late, they didn& #39;t get introduced & they didn& #39;t know who anyone was. And they just dropped into a conversation between people who mostly knew each other already. Awkward.
At my table, I tried to notice as ppl joined & I asked if they had NSF questions, since that& #39;s what I had advertised. But mostly I chatted with my already-friends. I "met" a few other people, but no one I would necessarily remember or recognize if I saw them again.
The reason I hesitated posting is that I& #39;m not sure an online environment *can* mimic the things that naturally happen at in-person conferences. Someone gives a talk. You find them after & say: I thought about that a long time & couldn& #39;t figure it out. Did you really prove X?
They clarify the perhaps over-simplified statement in their talk. "How did you deal with Y?" They explain. You chat a bit more, and then a new project or friendship emerges.
Maybe this happened to the speakers, but I doubt it.
Maybe this happened to the speakers, but I doubt it.
Or more socially, you see a friend chatting with someone whose name you recognize from a paper. So you join their little group & introduce yourself and talk a bit. Just the three (or some other smallish number) of you.
I know you tried to do that with the "add your name to the table" stuff in the google doc. But that didn& #39;t work. There were too many tables, and too many people per table. And there wasn& #39;t any natural way to break into a convo or have a side convo.
So... I enjoyed the tables & catching up with friends. But I imagined myself as a grad student or postdoc, and I wouldn& #39;t have gotten much out of them. I would have joined one or two, and then I would have bailed on the rest of them.
(In fact, I did bail on most of the social stuff on Sunday, except joining @blviray& #39;s table after the panel.)
I want to reiterate: the conference was great. I think you all did an amazing job. The talks were good. The panels were good. The technology worked pretty flawlessly throughout.
Things I missed: We got a count of how many people were there, but I miss that feeling of looking around the room & seeing people you recognize & giving a little wave. I knew there were 400-ish people but not who.
There was no side chatter. I usually sit next to someone like @xanderfaber at talks, and then I whisper my dumb questions to him (esp at algebraic geom talks). Or we make silly comments. Or he mutters "that& #39;s baller" under his breath. There was no way to do this.
And I think the zoom tables are fun if you already know lots of people, but not so great if you don& #39;t. And they were a bit hard to navigate.
Oh, I also think the coffee breaks were too short to: leave the meeting, actually get coffee, join a zoom table, have any kind of conversation, then re-join the meeting.
At an in-person conference: "wanna talk while we wait in line for coffee?" Here you had to choose.
At an in-person conference: "wanna talk while we wait in line for coffee?" Here you had to choose.
