On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:51 PM David Sankel <cam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:23 PM Zach Laine <whatwasthataddr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:12 PM Michael Klose <michael.kl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I don't know how other PC members evaluate sessions. This is how I do >>> it: I read the submission. I google the name to see if the speaker actually >>> has credentials, work experience in the area that I can find, and look for >>> any blogs or videos that are up online - and I actually watch those videos >>> to see how good of a speaker the person is. For me, seeing on video how >>> good of a speaker someone is forms a very large part of how I rate the >>> submission. >>> >>> I am against blind submissions. >>> >> >> I am very much for them. I know they present a logistical challenge, but >> there is simply no known way of eliminating bias that is better than this. >> >> I have a preference for this in part because I don't really rely on the >> submitter's previous work; I pretty much only read the submission. >> > > Zach, are you in favor of blind submissions enough that you'd be willing > to take the lead on working through the logistical challenges? > > I don't think the only two choices here are "all blind" and "all not > blind". There are various mixtures that could work. > Unfortunately, no. I'm fairly overcommitted as it is. Zach -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "boostcon-plan" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boostcon-plan+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/boostcon-plan/CALOpkJAm6qhAZ1RPF14Ug5zDZ0Jnq4YtLM-0066rfq1dkrtQtw%40mail.gmail.com.
