Update: See Chicago Dyke's thoughts over at Corrente.

Update 2: FDL has couple posts on it as well, concerned more with content. Siun weighs in asking if the netroots is losing its edge and Teddy notes that he doesn't really get the way there seemed to be warm and fuzzies with the media.

I'm always impressed by people who volunteer to make something work and Yearly Kos was no exception. The conference went largely smoothly due to a lot of hard work by a lot of people and any problems I'm going to discuss below were the result of decisions made above the level most volunteers work at.

I enjoyed my time at Yearly Kos. I met a lot of people I've corresponded with but never seen in the flesh. I reconnected with friends. I got to see the Art Institute of Chicago. I got to drink, a, err, bit. I saw some smart people say some smart things. (I also saw some smart people say some stupid things.) I got to see Edwards and Obama tag team Hilary. I got to hear Gravel's "how Washington Really Works" comments in the debate (your opinion isn't even in the top 3 things politicians consider when making decisions was one thing he told us. More on Gravel later.)

But despite the fact that more politicians came to YKos to kiss up to the netroots, this year simply wasn't as good as last year. Everyone else is writing about how wonderful it all was, and on balance it was a good convention. But here are things that were done wrong:

Too Spread Out: McCormack place, the convention center, is too large. You had to walk long distances to get to different seminars and as a result the energy and the people were dispersed. Last year the convention was set up basically in a T section corridor with rooms off it, and to find people who you knew, or didn't know, you just walked up and down the hallways, which were crowded. Crowded is good. It encouraged miggling, it created buzz, it made us all feel like were there together.

Rooms were too large: Rule#1 - putting a large crowd in a larger room (using, say 60%) makes it look like people aren't interested. Bad idea. The rooms should be barely big enough or even slightly too small so a few people have to stand. This creates excitement. Violated in about half the sessions I went to including in some which had a lot of people and even bigger rooms.

Media Room too far away and apparently not staffed. Last year the media room was centrally located, and had a couple of minders in the room almost all the time (and always at least one). If a reporter wanted something there was someone there to help them get it; to answer questions; to give background - to handle them (and anyone who doesn't handle reporters is foolish.) This time the room was a good 10 minute walk from the main area. As a result it was barely used. And if there was staff assigned to it, I didn't see them (not that, since it was barely used, there was any point in having staff there permanently.)

More After the Jump

No Microphones: The panelists had mics, sure, but the audience didn't except in the ballroom sessions. Last year mics were set up so that when audience members asked questions of the panelists, they could be heard. This year they weren't, those who weren't used to projecting or who were in large rooms, simply could not be heard by all the participants (or, often enough, the panelists.)

Too many "serious people" not enough bloggers: I should note that this isn't a personal beef - I didn't know if I'd be going until the last couple weeks, and thus not only didn't ask for any panels, but turned down an offer to be on one. However, what I did notice (and no, I haven't run the numbers) was a much higher number of journalists, think-tankers and various other "serious people" on the panels. Bloggers actually seemed to be a minority on the panels. One might think this means that the media would take YKos more seriously, but the irony is that except for events with true star power (ie. the debate) that generally isn't the case - they prefer something different from the same old people from the world of the bubble. It also meant that I (and others I talked to) felt they were being talked at, rather than being part of a conversation with other netroots people. While the sessions I was in always took audience questions it felt like the community was being talked to, rather than holding a conversation amongst itself.

No tribute to Steve Gilliard: Say what!? Why wasn't there? If more bloggers had been more involved in the process there would have been. There was a panel on a "bloggers union", which is partially a response to Steve's death (health insurance would have made a big difference for Steve) but he himself was not honored. A very odd oversight and one that I think wouldn't have occured if bloggers had been more involved in the planning.

Too expensive: McCormack place is isolated from downtown, has almost no cheap food options nearby and is overly expensive (e.g. $8 for a sandwich). No problem for the people who were there on expense accounts, but for those of us paying our own freight - pretty painful. One blogger described getting out of McCormack as "going over the wall" (which itself cost a $30 cab drive, a long walk, or a long bus ride.) A more central location nearer to multiple food (and lodging) options would have been better.

Update: Livestreams not working properly Per DaupinTM in the comments the livestreams weren't working in a way that allowed people to view most of the conference. Seems like a big thing for a netroots conference to do.

Overall there seems to have been a desire to "professionalize" the conference in the sense of making it look corporate and big. That effort mainly succeeded in making it look smaller than it was (by drowning people in too large a venue), in reducing the energy both by spreading people out too much and by bringing in too many non community members on the panels, and made it expensive for the netroots folks, the people not expensing it, who are the heart of the conference.

None of this is to detract from the immense amounts of work put in by the dedicated volunteers. They worked hard, and the problems with the conference appear to mostly reflect executive level decisions not made by the volunteer corp. Nor is it to say that the conference wasn't a success. It was. But these decisions, if they become a trend, could be very dangerous to the conference's health.