If you look at my last couple of blogposts, that might surprise you, since they were about going to GOTO Aarhus, not GOTO Copenhagen. Well, that's because I am going to GOTO Aarhus in my capacity as a blogger, while I went to GOTO Copenhagen as a "civilian" (i.e. together with some of my colleagues). Since GOTO Copenhagen and GOTO Aarhus have the same sessions, this means that I probably get to see more of the sessions than anyone else, perhaps excluding the speakers themselves.
Even though I didn't go to GOTO Copenhagen as a blogger, it won't keep me from writing a bit about my impressions from the sessions I attended there - this also allows me to make some suggestions for what people should go to at GOTO Aarhus.
Below is my schedule during GOTO Copenhagen:
- New Linting Rules - Kyle Simpson (Enterprise Architecture)
- From 'Agile Hangover' to 'Antifragile Organisations' - Russell Miles (People & Process)
- Fast Delivery - Adrian Cockcroft (People & Process)
- Deep Dive into the Big Data Landscape - Part I - Eva Andreasson (Enterprise Architecture)
- Lean Enterprise - Part II - Jez Humble (People & Process)
- The Future of C# - Mads Torgersen (Enterprise Architecture)
- What I Learned About Going Fast at eBay and Google - Randy Shoup (People & Process)
- Responding in a timely manner - Microseconds in HFT or milliseconds in web apps, its all the the same design principles - Martin Thompson (Enterprise Architecture)
- A retake on the Agile Manifesto Part I - Katherine Kirk/Prag-Dave Thomas/Jez Humble/Tatiana Badiceanu/Martin Fowler (People & Process)
- A retake on the Agile Manifesto Part II - Katherine Kirk/Prag-Dave Thomas/Jez Humble/Tatiana Badiceanu/Martin Fowler (People & Process)
As with most conferences, there is a rating system, where one can indicate what you feel about a given session. At GOTO it is the classic green-yellow-red system. All of the sessions I attended, with one exception, I gave a green - and the one I gave a yellow, I actually think in hind-sight also deserved a green.
I should probably add that I give a green based on either of two critierias:
- Was it interesting/informative/entertaining
- Did I get new insights out of it
This means that theoretically a speaker can be less than stellar, but able to give me new insights, and then receive a green vote. In reality, however, this happens very rarely, so green votes are usually given to great speakers, who usually are also able to provide me insights.