Plus, it’s an unconference! Unlike other well known conferences that charge hundreds of dollars a day, this one is free. People who attended Gov 2.0 camp in DC got to hear and meet many of the same people who speak at the high-priced conference – in a much more fun, interactive, open and freewheeling environment.

It’s bizarre to me that Government 2.0 is all about openness, democracy and transparency yet we have minor functionaries in Capitol City issuing edicts about which are the approved conferences.

As Alan is the main organizer and has put out information thus far, I think the details have yet to be put out. Right now as I see it, it is a marketing campaign to gain interest.

As Mark and others who attended the Government 2.0 Camp in DC, you will note the details of the event (agenda items, aside from the Movie), were not determined until the morning of, as some unconference do. I do believe this will be the case.

We do have some themes we do wish to address, as Alan has posted previously.

This is an LA based event. And at the close of the DC event, participants were told to go forth and start chapters and events on their own.

We attempted to make Government 2.0 Club (with the guidance of Chris Heuer of Social Media Club) something out of the DC event. Coming up with a mission statement and charter, yet no real action from anyone on the planning committee of getting the club off and running or regular scheduled events.

In fact, Social Media Club DC would like to extend a formal hand in assisting Government 2.0 Club and Government 2.0 Club DC to get organized if such a desire is out there (especially since my interests cross into both). Additionally, SMC-DC is planning their events into 2010 and could coordinate the launch of Government 2.0 Club events with an SMC-DC event.

If this is how the space behaves, I have to say I’m really reluctant to become further involved. DC political pissing matches? Lack of support, infighting, men feeling threatened that they aren’t in control… bah. DC can keep it.

The camps that I’ve seen that cater to a larger audience have less impact than smaller audiences and since localized events are more effective in doing than talking. Think Startup Weekend, which is not technically a camp, but is a hyperlocal event anyway. 54 hours for an entrepreneur or team to go from concept to prototype, including business resources and planning. The resources are there. The bloviating that goes with conferences isn’t.

Then you had the PodCamp Boston 2 event I mentioned in my post. I believe the number of registrants was approximately 2000… way too many for a local event. Only 700 showed up. They had the Boston Convention Center thanks in no small part to Jeff Pulver giving space out of his VON event that year. People came from NYC, DC, London, Australia and other places around the world and the event was largely seen as a failure. Future PodCamps in Boston went back to their roots.

All this to say, there’s nothing that restricts event organizers in their scope, but I think the expectation and, in fact, the best return comes on highly local events.

Your points about all-camps-are-local are more subtle. I’m not sure I agree. But with your premise, yes, maybe I shouldn’t comment. On the other hand, half the planning committee isn’t from Alan’s local area. That’s actually an interesting panel discussion best saved for a IRL event from SMC or something. – Are all camps local?

Can’t argue with a word you’ve said. However, I think it’s important to note my context around Gov 2.0. It is both public sector and private sector. Additionally, the Gov 2.0 Camp DC and LA are not paid for by government agencies. This does not change the greater challenge in this post and that is community.

I have a feeling that I am going to get flamed for this as well (perhaps deflecting some from you), but my perspective is that of someone who spent 15 years in the private sector and the last two in government.

And being a government employee, I have to preface this comment by stating that the views expressed in this commentary are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Back to business.

I feel the collective pain in this post — by both you and Mark, and here’s why.

I am director of new media in my agency and I am happy to say that I have had some successes in getting social media initiatives accomplished. I’m lucky, because I have support at the highest levels.

That said, early on in my government career, I sought out networking events and came in with expectations that they would be like those I knew so well in the private sector. Well, I stopped going because for me to invest time in something, I need to LEARN. Learn what is next. Learn what is cool. Learn about a new social media tool that I was not familiar with and how to make it work. I’m not interested in networking for socializing or job seeking. Not my style.

What I encountered at these events was people asking question like “what is twitter?” and “how do I use it?” rather than the subject matter of events that I was used to in the private sector. This is not to say that there is s differing level of sophistication between government and the private sector, but when I found myself doing more teaching than learning, I stopped going. Selfish? Probably.

And to the other point about Mickey Mouse events, I can’t speak to the planning (except for what I said above), but I can say that, in order to have events in the federal government, we have to pay for stuff out of out own pockets. That’s right. We had HUGE event at my employer just last week and since it began at breakfast time, I jokingly asked where the coffee and donuts were. And I was told that if they were to be served, the employees of my agency — the organizers themselves — would have had to pay for the stuff out of their own pockets.

So for me, Government 2.0 events ARE different than private sector events for some basic reasons:

1) The private sector pays more. And the talent usually follows the money — but not always. I am the exception to the rule. I got OUT of the private sector.

2) Many — but not all — of those who have assumed a role in social media in government were promoted from within and NOT recruited from the private sector. This leads to an on-the-job training and a slower learning curve.

3) Social media is an enormously tough sell in government. you have to have buy-in at the highest levels if you want to accomplish anything. And accomplishing things gives you the opportunity to share success stories with colleagues. This leads to collective learning, rather than (“Can we get this through legal?)

4) Compared to the private sector, the government is NOT good at putting on events, especially with precious little budget. We don’t have four color, glossy brochures and the most powerful Macs to do cool stuff (or the talent, in my case). And I have yet to meet anyone in government whose title is “Event Planner.” Combine this with the fact that the overwhelming majority of these events are done on someone’s personal time (see point #3 about support) and you often get a well-intentioned, but ultimately, amateur event. I saw a lot more willingness in the private sector to put on a bar camp (and give you the time to do it) than in government, where many people still don’t GET social media and are reluctant to green-light activities that take away from work time.

My two cents.

Flame away.

Mark

Alan Silberberg
CEO, You2Gov
Organizer, Gov20LA
@You2Gov on Twitter