I think that is a reasonable number, but I also think that the entire process needs review and (more) discussion.
Thanks, Cary On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Peter Murray <peter.mur...@lyrasis.org> wrote: > Speaking from the program committee perspective, we went through the > proposals that were voted into the conference by the community and made sure > there was each presenter was at the podium for only one presentation. There > was one case where we asked someone who was voted in for a solo presentation > and also a joint presentation to relinquish one spot, which happened. > > It does make sense to reserve a percentage of slots for first-time Code4Lib > presenters. 15% sounds like a good number to experiment with for next year. > Are there any objections from the community for doing that? (Do we need to > find a way to formalize consensus in the group?) > > > Peter > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:27 PM, "Roy Tennant" <roytenn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I also think it is a good idea to reserve a certain number/percentage of >> speaking slots to first-time presenters. I also want to bring up (again) >> the issue of presenters presenting more than once. We are looking at a >> conference with 400 attendees -- 400! How can we justify having anyone on >> the podium more than once? I mean, seriously? >> >> I think we need to realize that we have grown to the point that we need >> more management than we have in the past. Remember that we also still have >> open-ended slots for lightning talks and breakouts. It isn't like I'm >> calling for the kind of strictness that ALA imposes. >> Roy >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Edward M Corrado >> <ecorr...@ecorrado.us>wrote: >> >>> I am not thrilled with the idea of anonymous proposals as I think that >>> goes against the openness non-organization that is code4lib. Also based on >>> the numbers posted earlier it seems inputs are more of an issue then the >>> voting. >>> >>> However, I love the idea of X number of presentations reserved for first >>> time presenters. I don't know what the value of X should be but Bess's idea >>> of 15% sounds good to me. >>> >>> I'd personally also like to see a limit to the number of talks someone can >>> give or propose, but I know this has been brought up before and, at least >>> in the past, there was not overwhelming support for this. >>> >>> Edward >>> >>> -- >>> Edward M. Corrado >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 18:41, Bess Sadler <bess.sad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am not volunteering to write the voting mechanism for this, but what >>> if we had two rounds of voting? >>>> >>>> 1. First round, anonymous (people who follow these things avidly would >>> of course have read everyone's names on the wiki, but I think for most >>> people not having the names listed means you have removed the names from >>> consideration). We use the current system of assigning points. Once you've >>> cast that ballot, then you get ballot 2: >>>> >>>> 2. The same ballot with the names present. You now have the opportunity >>> to change your vote, if you want to. It might be because you didn't realize >>> that person who secretly bores you was one of the speakers. It might be >>> because what at first looked like just another talk about marc software >>> sounds more compelling if its from someone who's never spoken before. >>>> >>>> I wonder if we might also set aside a separate competition for first >>> time speakers? Say, 15% of the talks? Assuming that generally speaking, >>> offering ways for early-career folks or those new to public speaking to >>> participate is a good thing and would benefit diversity as a bonus. >>>> >>>> Bess >>>> >>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Kelley McGrath <kell...@uoregon.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'll second the idea of approaching people individually and explicitly >>> asking them to participate. It worked on me. I never would have written my >>> first article for the Code4Lib Journal or become a member of the editorial >>> committee if someone hadn't encouraged me individually (Thanks Jonathan!). >>>>> >>>>> It would also be good to find a way to somehow target the pool of >>> lurkers who maybe aren't already connected to someone and get them more >>> involved. >>>>> >>>>> As far as anonymous proposals go, we recently had a very good workshop >>> on implicit bias here. Someone brought up that found significant changes in >>> the gender proportions in symphony orchestras after candidates started >>> auditioning behind screens. There are also lots of studies about the >>> different responses to the same resume/application depending on whether a >>> stereotypically male/female or white/black name was used. Probably it's >>> impossible to make proposals completely anonymous, but it would be an >>> interesting experiment to leave off the names. >>>>> >>>>> Kelley >>>>> >>>>> PS Interestingly, I wouldn't instinctively self-identify as a member of >>> the Code4Lib community, although my first thought is that that has more to >>> do with not being a coder than with being a woman. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ************************** >>>>> Kelley McGrath >>>>> Metadata Management Librarian >>>>> University of Oregon Libraries >>>>> 1299 University of Oregon >>>>> Eugene, OR 97403 >>>>> >>>>> 541-346-8232 >>>>> kell...@uoregon.edu >>> -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
