Thanks for coming Parag!
I'd like to get out in the open why I started with a panel discussion and I'll save the biggest reason for last.
First, I thought that if we were going to have a group based on a particular special interest, such as software architecture it would be good to have some ground work laid as to what that special interest covered. Thus, the topic "What is an Architect" was selected. As we discovered this is actually very illusive and ambiguous. Believe it or not, this was on purpose. It is easy to say that you should not use select * from X in your SQL and here are the reasons why. It is harder to say that you should use this deployment model over another for all situations. Part of my vision for the group would be to cover topics that did not have a solid answer. Having a topic that is ambiguous to start off with I hoped let people get comfortable with the concept that when you leave the talks you should have more information in which to better make decisions, but you may not have any concrete facts.
Second, I selected the three panelists based my own opinion of people who would fit the role of an architect. It didn't matter if they were currently doing "architect" work, but rather people I thought would do a good job as an architect if put into that role. My list was longer than three as I know many people in the area that I think would be good architects; however, I knew the email addresses for these guys off the top of my head. :) I also didn't want a panel of ten people so I narrowed it down. The event changed from a panel discussion to a fish bowl because it made sense to do so. I also wanted to see how the fish bowl would work out and if we wanted to continue its use in subsequent meetings (we will).
Lastly, and most importantly, I selected a panel discussion to get started because I'm lazy. It's easy to get people to commit to come talk for an hour or so as "panelists" when they don't have to prepare anything. They just show up and give their opinion. That's an easy sell. It's harder to ask someone to produce a talk on a given subject, especially if it needed to be a specific subject such as "what is an architect". <sarcasm>I mean, who would even spend time putting together such a presentation.</sarcasm> (I know Joe has a presentation on this, but he had presented it only a few months ago for CINNUG).
As for Parag's suggestions I'll say this: I do need to do a better job at moderating. It is hard to determine what is "off topic" when some of the tangents are very closely related. It also didn't help that I had to duck out after the prizes to talk to Stacey. I don't think we will limit the participants to only questions. I'd really like to see this as a collaborative group and to do so requires everyone have a chance to put in their thoughts. As discussed that night though, I do like the idea of inviting "experts" and having them sit at the table. We could make some concessions to allow them to always be at the table, but this would never be more than one person at a time. They might turn into the moderator which supposedly should sit at the table at all times.