Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 (author of The Lean Startup which is also worth a read) just came across my radar. It details how The Lean Startup Conference has attempted to achieve a more diverse set of speakers. Obviously all of what they did may not apply easily to the code4lib conference, but it's at least worth reading/skimming in light of all these recent threads. http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2012/11/solving-pipeline-problem.html - Tim -- Tim Donohue Technical Lead for DSpace Project DuraSpace.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 do with as they wish. If there's no opposition, I'd still like to propose giving the committee the flexibility to use those slots to diversify the program, one major consideration being first time presenters, but not being an absolute requirement. Limits As of right now, we are still sticking to these limits, and I'd be in favour of keeping it * 1 presentation max per person (not including pre-conf) * 2 presenters max per presentation * No limit on number of proposals per person Agreed: presenter anonymity--
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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? Thanks, Kevin On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:30 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. At 15%, we'd be looking at 3-4 slots reserved for the program committee (whoever that might be next year) to do with as they wish. If there's no opposition, I'd still like to propose giving the committee the flexibility to use those slots to diversify the program, one major consideration being first time presenters, but not being an absolute requirement. Limits As of right now, we are still sticking to these limits, and I'd be in favour of keeping it * 1 presentation max per person (not including pre-conf) * 2 presenters max per presentation * No limit on number of proposals per person Agreed: presenter anonymity--
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 two proposals that I sent in this year: * Making the Web Accessible through Solid Design * Getting People to What They Need Fast! A Wayfinding Tool to Locate Books Much More Neither made the cut, but I would say that's beside the point. How often do people send in more than two proposals anyway? On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Kevin S. Clarke kscla...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Thanks, Kevin On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:30 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. At 15%, we'd be looking at 3-4 slots reserved for the program committee (whoever that might be next year) to do with as they wish. If there's no opposition, I'd still like to propose giving the committee the flexibility to use those slots to diversify the program, one major consideration being first time presenters, but not being an absolute requirement. Limits As of right now, we are still sticking to these limits, and I'd be in favour of keeping it * 1 presentation max per person (not including pre-conf) * 2 presenters max per presentation * No limit on number of proposals per person Agreed: presenter anonymity--
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 proposals out in favor of the next most popular presentations, I don't see the problem. FWIW, we have done this since the very first conference (Casey Durfee, I think, had two proposals voted in and we asked him to choose one and let the next highest vote getter in). -Ross. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Kevin S. Clarke kscla...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Thanks, Kevin On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:30 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. At 15%, we'd be looking at 3-4 slots reserved for the program committee (whoever that might be next year) to do with as they wish. If there's no opposition, I'd still like to propose giving the committee the flexibility to use those slots to diversify the program, one major consideration being first time presenters, but not being an absolute requirement. Limits As of right now, we are still sticking to these limits, and I'd be in favour of keeping it * 1 presentation max per person (not including pre-conf) * 2 presenters max per presentation * No limit on number of proposals per person Agreed: presenter anonymity--
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 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 that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Edward
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Since I'm pretty intimately aware of the minutiae of the proposals (since I have to load them one-by-one into the diebold-o-tron every year), I am pretty sure that multiple proposal submission is not the exclusive domain of conference veterans. It is a pretty healthy mix of people I know and people I don't. While I still stick to not having a problem with multiple submissions, I can see an issue in the case of second proposals that are similar to other proposals. That said, the process is never going to be perfect, having some editorial discretion on the part of the program committee seems to me to mitigate the worst of the downsides. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 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 be. I believe having multiple proposals from the same person(s) and, for that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Since I'm pretty intimately aware of the minutiae of the proposals (since I have to load them one-by-one into the diebold-o-tron every year), I am pretty sure that multiple proposal submission is not the exclusive domain of conference veterans. It is a pretty healthy mix of people I know and people I don't. While I still stick to not having a problem with multiple submissions, I can see an issue in the case of second proposals that are similar to other proposals. That said, the process is never going to be perfect, having some editorial discretion on the part of the program committee seems to me to mitigate the worst of the downsides. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 put a limit on presenters but on my choices as well. --jay I would argue that multiple submissions limits me as a voter as well. If a person with multiple proposals gets more then one accepted, the one I wanted more could be dropped, and if I knew it would have been dropped, I might have voted for a presentation from someone else on a related topic higher. Unless we have a completely open schedule, voters, presenters, and conference goers are all limited in some way. Edward 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 be. I believe having multiple proposals from the same person(s) and, for that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Since I'm pretty intimately aware of the minutiae of the proposals (since I have to load them one-by-one into the diebold-o-tron every year), I am pretty sure that multiple proposal submission is not the exclusive domain of conference veterans. It is a pretty healthy mix of people I know and people I don't. While I still stick to not having a problem with multiple submissions, I can see an issue in the case of second proposals that are similar to other proposals. That said, the process is never going to be perfect, having some editorial discretion on the part of the program committee seems to me to mitigate the worst of the downsides. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 be. I believe having multiple proposals from the same person(s) and, for that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Since I'm pretty intimately aware of the minutiae of the proposals (since I have to load them one-by-one into the diebold-o-tron every year), I am pretty sure that multiple proposal submission is not the exclusive domain of conference veterans. It is a pretty healthy mix of people I know and people I don't. But a new person to the community doesn't know who is a veteran or not. Edward While I still stick to not having a problem with multiple submissions, I can see an issue in the case of second proposals that are similar to other proposals. That said, the process is never going to be perfect, having some editorial discretion on the part of the program committee seems to me to mitigate the worst of the downsides. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 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 I would argue that multiple submissions limits me as a voter as well. If a person with multiple proposals gets more then one accepted, the one I wanted more could be dropped, and if I knew it would have been dropped, I might have voted for a presentation from someone else on a related topic higher. Unless we have a completely open schedule, voters, presenters, and conference goers are all limited in some way. Edward 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 be. I believe having multiple proposals from the same person(s) and, for that matter, multiple proposals from the same institution(s), does nothing to help counter this perception, and possibly perpetuates it. Since I'm pretty intimately aware of the minutiae of the proposals (since I have to load them one-by-one into the diebold-o-tron every year), I am pretty sure that multiple proposal submission is not the exclusive domain of conference veterans. It is a pretty healthy mix of people I know and people I don't. While I still stick to not having a problem with multiple submissions, I can see an issue in the case of second proposals that are similar to other proposals. That said, the process is never going to be perfect, having some editorial discretion on the part of the program committee seems to me to mitigate the worst of the downsides. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 them decide *all* of the sessions, the logic being that the only reason for a program committee to exist in first place is to put together a program. Don't get me wrong. I like approval voting. I like the idea of putting on what people want. But that's not the same as putting on what people ask for. When you ask a decent sized population what they want, they'll ask for things they know they want to learn and people they want to hear from. What's wrong with that? For starters, it encourages intellectual inbreeding. Problems, technologies, etc, that affect more people are favored while things with a more select appeal get deemphasized. But IMO, the reason to go to c4l is not to learn about X or Y, but to expose yourself to people and things that were totally off your radar. Secondly, the program should be a coherent whole, not a collection of parts. People choose sessions individually without any knowledge of what else will be on the program. Balance can only be achieved by accident or if someone is making it happen (i.e. the program committee). People shouldn't just be submitting things -- the committee should identify talented individuals who aren't already known and actively recruit them. They should directly suggest topics to people who know something but have trouble recognizing how much their ideas would benefit the community. By taking a much more active role in recruiting presentations, the program committee can mitigate the self selection issue as well as tackle the diversity issue head on. It's not like the process wouldn't still be community driven since anyone can be on the program committee. As far as the 15% target goes, I think that's a decent goal but would hope it would be much higher in practice. This conference is all about participation and sharing. At the first c4l, 100% of the sessions were by first time attendees. I seem to remember that the vast majority of the people attending were on the stage at some time. Besides, a lot of people do their best work early in their careers. And to all the people reading this who feel shy/intimidated about jumping in, you're too respectful of the status quo. There are a lot of dedicated people who really know what they're doing. But you should never be afraid to call things as you see them. If everyone in a group you like thinks one thing, and you think another, that doesn't make you wrong -- to believe otherwise is a substitute for thinking. Creative spark rather than technical skill is what moves us forward and many of the people who appear very established were regarded as yahoos not that long ago. To summarize, I favor having the program committee decide the whole program and think their process should be informed by voting and goals of the community. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 ( like newcomer or diverse perspective or something... god, really hard not to put a joke in here. ). The designation would be the presenter's choice. c) simply reiterated the goals and code of conduct right before voting time so everyone remembers the we had this discussion. I kinda think if we did that, we'd meet our goals and would avoid having to make a bunch of voting rule changes or form a committee. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.comwrote: 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 them decide *all* of the sessions, the logic being that the only reason for a program committee to exist in first place is to put together a program. Don't get me wrong. I like approval voting. I like the idea of putting on what people want. But that's not the same as putting on what people ask for. When you ask a decent sized population what they want, they'll ask for things they know they want to learn and people they want to hear from. What's wrong with that? For starters, it encourages intellectual inbreeding. Problems, technologies, etc, that affect more people are favored while things with a more select appeal get deemphasized. But IMO, the reason to go to c4l is not to learn about X or Y, but to expose yourself to people and things that were totally off your radar. Secondly, the program should be a coherent whole, not a collection of parts. People choose sessions individually without any knowledge of what else will be on the program. Balance can only be achieved by accident or if someone is making it happen (i.e. the program committee). People shouldn't just be submitting things -- the committee should identify talented individuals who aren't already known and actively recruit them. They should directly suggest topics to people who know something but have trouble recognizing how much their ideas would benefit the community. By taking a much more active role in recruiting presentations, the program committee can mitigate the self selection issue as well as tackle the diversity issue head on. It's not like the process wouldn't still be community driven since anyone can be on the program committee. As far as the 15% target goes, I think that's a decent goal but would hope it would be much higher in practice. This conference is all about participation and sharing. At the first c4l, 100% of the sessions were by first time attendees. I seem to remember that the vast majority of the people attending were on the stage at some time. Besides, a lot of people do their best work early in their careers. And to all the people reading this who feel shy/intimidated about jumping in, you're too respectful of the status quo. There are a lot of dedicated people who really know what they're doing. But you should never be afraid to call things as you see them. If everyone in a group you like thinks one thing, and you think another, that doesn't make you wrong -- to believe otherwise is a substitute for thinking. Creative spark rather than technical skill is what moves us forward and many of the people who appear very established were regarded as yahoos not that long ago. To summarize, I favor having the program committee decide the whole program and think their process should be informed by voting and goals of the community. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 allow the audience to tell me what they actually want to hear about. I hope it's okay to admit this, but it's also been my personal hedging strategy for making sure there are at least a few women on stage. Two of our tiny number of women speakers for 2013 will appear thanks to that policy. Bess On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Kevin S. Clarke kscla...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Thanks, Kevin On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:30 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. At 15%, we'd be looking at 3-4 slots reserved for the program committee (whoever that might be next year) to do with as they wish. If there's no opposition, I'd still like to propose giving the committee the flexibility to use those slots to diversify the program, one major consideration being first time presenters, but not being an absolute requirement. Limits As of right now, we are still sticking to these limits, and I'd be in favour of keeping it * 1 presentation max per person (not including pre-conf) * 2 presenters max per presentation * No limit on number of proposals per person Agreed: presenter anonymity--
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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, and recruit presenters to offer subjects that are desired, but aren't proposed. This would be a non-trivial bit of work. b) Program committee members would need a good supply of sling and arrow repellant and an exceedingly thick skin. Thanks, Cary On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com wrote: 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 them decide *all* of the sessions, the logic being that the only reason for a program committee to exist in first place is to put together a program. Don't get me wrong. I like approval voting. I like the idea of putting on what people want. But that's not the same as putting on what people ask for. When you ask a decent sized population what they want, they'll ask for things they know they want to learn and people they want to hear from. What's wrong with that? For starters, it encourages intellectual inbreeding. Problems, technologies, etc, that affect more people are favored while things with a more select appeal get deemphasized. But IMO, the reason to go to c4l is not to learn about X or Y, but to expose yourself to people and things that were totally off your radar. Secondly, the program should be a coherent whole, not a collection of parts. People choose sessions individually without any knowledge of what else will be on the program. Balance can only be achieved by accident or if someone is making it happen (i.e. the program committee). People shouldn't just be submitting things -- the committee should identify talented individuals who aren't already known and actively recruit them. They should directly suggest topics to people who know something but have trouble recognizing how much their ideas would benefit the community. By taking a much more active role in recruiting presentations, the program committee can mitigate the self selection issue as well as tackle the diversity issue head on. It's not like the process wouldn't still be community driven since anyone can be on the program committee. As far as the 15% target goes, I think that's a decent goal but would hope it would be much higher in practice. This conference is all about participation and sharing. At the first c4l, 100% of the sessions were by first time attendees. I seem to remember that the vast majority of the people attending were on the stage at some time. Besides, a lot of people do their best work early in their careers. And to all the people reading this who feel shy/intimidated about jumping in, you're too respectful of the status quo. There are a lot of dedicated people who really know what they're doing. But you should never be afraid to call things as you see them. If everyone in a group you like thinks one thing, and you think another, that doesn't make you wrong -- to believe otherwise is a substitute for thinking. Creative spark rather than technical skill is what moves us forward and many of the people who appear very established were regarded as yahoos not that long ago. To summarize, I favor having the program committee decide the whole program and think their process should be informed by voting and goals of the community. kyle -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 would need to fairly vet all the proposals, and recruit presenters to offer subjects that are desired, but aren't proposed. This would be a non-trivial bit of work. b) Program committee members would need a good supply of sling and arrow repellant and an exceedingly thick skin. Thanks, Cary +1 to the challenges Cary presents. Having faced both of these as LITA Program Planning Chair, it's definitely non-trivial. That being said, the work is certainly worth the effort. -- Abigail Goben Assistant Information Services Librarian and Assistant Professor University of Illinois at Chicago Library of the Health Sciences - Chicago (M/C 763) 1750 W. Polk Street Chicago, Illinois 60612 312.996.8292
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 also made a note that the goal of these sessions set aside for the program committee should be diversity. If you'd like to take a look, it's on the wiki: http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/How_To_Plan_A_Code4LibCon#Program_Committtee 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?
Re: [CODE4LIB] Proposed Changes to Future Conference Program Choosing
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 expanded to ask presenters to submit a short bio beyond name, institution, email. This will give potential presenters an opportunity to share what is useful/new/geeky/unique/awesome about their individual perspectives and backgrounds. This would open up the field for bios that could say things like I am a woman who learned to program after I had kids as well as I have presented at every code4lib conference and I have never once shown screenshots of XML. Woman with a gender-ambiguous first name to throw off your statistics, Robin
