<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The dual conference model</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.unconference.net/the-dual-conference-model/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.unconference.net/the-dual-conference-model/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:37:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: unconference &#187; Dual Track at Voice 2.0 &#8220;lesson learned&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.unconference.net/the-dual-conference-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1583</link>
		<dc:creator>unconference &#187; Dual Track at Voice 2.0 &#8220;lesson learned&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kaliyasblogs.net/unconference/?p=41#comment-1583</guid>
		<description>[...] I blogged about Voice 2.0 a few weeks ago. I wondered if their choice to do dual track model would work. Now the event has happened they basically found what I thought they would. The one downside was the â€œunconferenceâ€ track. Not a single participant defined session. Bummer! We had a taste that this might be coming though, from Kaliya Hamlinâ€™s observation a couple of weeks back that unconference and formal conference donâ€™t necessarily make the best companions. Lesson learned. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I blogged about Voice 2.0 a few weeks ago. I wondered if their choice to do dual track model would work. Now the event has happened they basically found what I thought they would. The one downside was the â€œunconferenceâ€ track. Not a single participant defined session. Bummer! We had a taste that this might be coming though, from Kaliya Hamlinâ€™s observation a couple of weeks back that unconference and formal conference donâ€™t necessarily make the best companions. Lesson learned. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Voice 2.0 Wrap Up -- Alec Saunders .LOG</title>
		<link>http://www.unconference.net/the-dual-conference-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1582</link>
		<dc:creator>Voice 2.0 Wrap Up -- Alec Saunders .LOG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kaliyasblogs.net/unconference/?p=41#comment-1582</guid>
		<description>[...] All in all, the day was a great success.Â  The one downside was the &#8220;unconference&#8221; track.Â  Not a single participant defined session.Â  Bummer!Â  We had a taste that this might be coming though, from Kaliya Hamlin&#8217;s observation a couple of weeks back that unconference and formal conference don&#8217;t necessarily make the best companions.Â  Lesson learned.Â  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] All in all, the day was a great success.Â  The one downside was the &#8220;unconference&#8221; track.Â  Not a single participant defined session.Â  Bummer!Â  We had a taste that this might be coming though, from Kaliya Hamlin&#8217;s observation a couple of weeks back that unconference and formal conference don&#8217;t necessarily make the best companions.Â  Lesson learned.Â  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
