Kiran Jonnalagadda’s Blog

We’re experimenting with the format each event and taking in feedback intuitively. We could do with being more thorough in examining what works and what doesn’t. We need help.

There are questions raised each event that tend to not be answered satisfactorily. Consider the significant changes Barcamp Bangalore has gone through with each iteration:

BCB1: (from existing conferences) No projectors for the most part, no pre-defined agenda, no introduction or conclusion, small rooms suited for 5-10 people at a time.

BCB2: Change of management, upholding the principle that anyone can put together a Barcamp.

BCB3: Rooms with well-defined themes; drive to induct non-techies and turn Barcamp into a space for cross-disciplinary interaction.

BCB4: Collectives, whereby people hooked up with each other pre-event; groups oriented around people rather than topics.

BCB5: Voting for some sessions? (Where the voting format is intended to encourage pre-event discussions.)

The questions following each event:

1. What works?
2. What doesn’t?
3. What is “worked”?
4. What was intended and achieved?
5. What was unintended but desirable and observed occurring? What caused it?
6. What was unintended and undesirable and also observed occurring? What caused it?
7. Some participants don’t speak where someone in a position to effect change will hear them. How do we hear what they’re saying?
8. Some participants don’t come back. Why not?
9. New participants come in each time. How did they hear of the event? What did they expect it to be?
10. What would participants like to achieve at Barcamp? What constitutes a suitable return on energy invested?

Some of these questions can be answered by selecting items on a check list. Others cannot. We need help with (a) reframing these questions suitably, (b) conducting the survey, and (c) making meaning from the results.

We need a statistician for Barcamp.

Someone at Barcamp left a message in my shared folder suggesting I not share it because it was potentially dangerous.

Thank you for your concern, but I really do think I know what I’m doing. My shared folder is for sharing at such public occasions. I’d rather trust that people will in general behave well than fear that it is dangerous. Danger to whom, anyway? And how? Because it could be used to propagate viruses? My setup is immune and I can’t empathise with anyone who wilfully uses an insecure environment. Or dangerous because confidential data may be stolen? In other words, assume that I’m a moron?

I’m not sure what’s more annoying:

1. People stupid enough to put confidential data in publicly accessible folders, creating the need for such caution.
2. People who think they’re being helpful by leaving such messages.
3. People so paranoid that sharing anything with them involves jumping through security hoops.

At Barcamp Bangalore yesterday, Siva Prasad presented on applying the Web 2.0 model to microfinance. The discussion rambled a fair bit as everyone who knew anything about microfinance tried to get their voice heard, with topics ranging from how microfinance is overrun by scam funds to how mainstream finance institutions are elbowing their way into the scene (I did my bit of hollering too).

To Siva’s credit, he managed to stay on track, describing the parallels in social structures in microfinance and Web 2.0 and how they may be potentially merged. This didn’t go down well with the crowd, who couldn’t accept that a borrower so poor as to be satiated with a Rs 3000 loan would get onto a website and “network” with potential lenders. Siva presented examples, but I came away feeling this was yet another frothy idea that wouldn’t survive reality.

So much for dismissal.

This morning my randomised podcast queue turned up an interview with Kiva cofounder Premal Shah on Venture Voice. Kiva was one of Siva’s examples.

Turns out Kiva is a front-end to several microfinance intiatives (MFIs) around the world. You can go to the site, look up profiles of borrowers along with the MFI representing them, and loan money. Lenders do not earn interest and return of the loaned money is not guaranteed, though Kiva has had 100% returns so far. There are no transaction charges. Kiva has a special deal with PayPal to this effect, and itself takes no cut, instead surviving on the interest earned and on explicit donations by lenders. (US taxpaying donors get a deduction as Kiva is a 501(c)(3) status charity.)

Does this work? Kiva keeps lenders updated on progress made by borrowers, but is this a sufficiently strong incentive to bring lenders to the site, given they earn no interest? I’m curious. I registered on the site and loaned $25 to a farmer in Uganda, thereby upping his request fulfillment to 90%. I’m going to follow up with a similar amount for the next few months and see how it works out.

In the interview, Premal Shah says that they’d like to offer a floating interest rate in future. If this happens, it’ll be very cool.