Martijn Faassen, 16.04.2014 15:53: > I also agree that the double blind > selection process does not fit the goals of EuroPython so much -- I already > gave feedback on that elsewhere in this thread.
Agreed. 1) It didn't always work, because some proposals included references to previous talks, links to prepared slides or because authors signed their responses to reviewer requests with their names. And even if not, for some topics it's just obvious who's behind them. At least some of the reviewers will always know. 2) I agree with Laura that it sometimes helps to know that the person who's written the proposal is the best to give a talk on that topic, regardless of what the proposal says specifically. Letting people represent their topics in the community (i.e. giving well known speakers their play ground) is IMHO as important as growing the community (i.e. getting new speakers in because they add a value to the community and/or the conference in *some* way). For me as a reviewer, it's helpful to see the names. Either I know them and can make that part of my review decision, or I don't know them and can make *that* part of my review decision. Or not, if the proposal is so good that I don't need to think any further anyway, but that's surprisingly rare. As long as it's clear to all reviewers that getting new people in is an explicit goal of the selection process, I think having name and bio visible would work better. And stating this goal publicly in the CfP might even make it easier for first-time participants to send us a proposal at all. In the worst case, there could still be a (soft) quota to limit the number of recurring speakers. :) Stefan _______________________________________________ EuroPython 2014 - July 21th-27th in Berlin EuroPython mailing list EuroPython@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython
