Hi All,
There's so many parallel threads here that it's hard to determine which
one to respond to. Nice to see all this open discussion though! :)
In any case, in regards to choosing future talks and attempting to
ensure speaker diversity, this blog post from Sarah Milstein Eric Ries
I'm really glad to see this discussion continuing. It seems like
there's a good amount of support for at least giving a certain amount
of sessions over for the program committee to decide.
At 15%, we'd be looking at 3-4 slots reserved for the program
committee (whoever that might be next year) to
Curious about the no limit on number of proposals per person. I know
we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the reasoning for
this decision. Is it just that we limit in the actual presentation (1
presentation max per person) so various proposals are okay? Why not
just limit up front?
I would say, yes, it's because we limit the number of presentations.
(Though in reality, I wasn't part of the older discussions).
I'd be against limiting up front because people can propose to talk
about very different topics that may be of interest to the community.
For example, these are the
On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Cynthia Ng cynthia.s...@gmail.com wrote:
How often do people send in more than two proposals anyway?
A lot. A whole lot.
That said, I don't think we should limit this. If the program committee is
comfortable with weeding the second (third, fourth!) elected
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Cynthia Ng cynthia.s...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
How often do people send in more than two proposals anyway?
There were a number this year and there has been in the past as well.
I favor limiting up front. One of the issues we have been discussing
is that
On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
I favor limiting up front. One of the issues we have been discussing
is that perception that Code4Lib is not as inclusive as it can or
should be. I believe having multiple proposals from the same person(s)
and, for
As a conference-goer I dislike the idea of limiting proposal submissions
for the same reason I dislike term limits: it doesn't let *me* choose from
all possibilities. The restriction cuts both ways in that it doesn't just
put a limit on presenters but on my choices as well.
--jay
On Wed, Nov
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Jay Luker lb...@reallywow.com wrote:
As a conference-goer I dislike the idea of limiting proposal submissions
for the same reason I dislike term limits: it doesn't let *me* choose from
all possibilities. The restriction cuts both ways in that it doesn't just
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
I favor limiting up front. One of the issues we have been discussing
is that perception that Code4Lib is not as inclusive as it can or
should
Just to clarify,
+1 on only one accepted presentation per person
-1 on only one submission per person
Sorry for any confusion.
--jay
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.uswrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Jay Luker lb...@reallywow.com wrote:
As a
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Cynthia Ng cynthia.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really glad to see this discussion continuing. It seems like
there's a good amount of support for at least giving a certain amount
of sessions over for the program committee to decide.
Frankly, I'd favor letting
maybe i'm just being naive, but i have the feeling if we:
a) strongly stated that we support and encourage diversity and would like
to see that reflected in our presentation lineup
b) allowed people to include some information about themselves in the
proposal that increases voter awareness (
Personally, I like the idea of being able to propose as many talks as you want
but only give one of them. Many of us have several projects we're working on at
any given time. Some of these might be of interest to the community and some
not. This way I can let people know what I'm working on and
Well, this is the fundamental problem, innit?
I have little doubt that a fully curated program would be more
interesting to more attendees than the current system. It would also,
presumably, be more diverse. The problems are:
a) The program committee would need to fairly vet all the proposals,
On 11/28/2012 1:16 PM, Cary Gordon wrote:
Well, this is the fundamental problem, innit?
I have little doubt that a fully curated program would be more
interesting to more attendees than the current system. It would also,
presumably, be more diverse. The problems are:
a) The program committee
I agree that a full-curated program would have its issues, and
honestly, I'd be hesitant to move make such a big leap. It seems
everyone agrees at least on the 15% (3-4 sessions) and made of note of
it in the documentation, but I'd still like to hear if people either
support more (or less). I've
Cynthia wrote:
As to whether people know who's a regular or not, reading through last year's
discussion, we might consider the idea of people self-identifying as female,
minority, first-timers, etc. as part of their proposals. Thoughts?
---
I would like to see the proposal requirements
18 matches
Mail list logo
