BCS wrote:
Hello Brad,
Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
justify having the conference. I see no reason to expect that there
will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
rejected. That'd be a wonderful place to be.
Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be
even more willing to try.
Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
put additional barriers in place. But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
otherwise attended were assisted flown in. What you're really saying
is that there needs to be a budget. That doesn't imply cost to
attend, though it would certainly help.
If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place
Yes. No doubt the first conference was an unqualified success (thanks,
Brad!) but this time around the novelty factor has worn off. It's not
the first step on the moon, it's going again on the moon.
We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and
others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go
(although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I
said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put
together a talk on something."
The way it ideally goes is not starting from giving a talk on
"something" and then figuring out the "something". Ideally /you have
something specific to say/ in the first place, and completing a
submission is a matter of chipping the extra marble away.
About money: if the conference is free the perception is that you get
what you paid for. Remember how many people said "yeah, I might make it"
and then didn't show? I think people should get a lot this time around,
and that the organizers and participants should make a mutual commitment
by putting a monetary value on it.
Andrei
