Normally a lurker, but I thought I'd point out that this is how SxSW
Interactive works. Voting is one part of the decision-making process, but
organizers have a lot of latitude to adjust the results to get the best
diversity of presentations. They also leave some slots free for
late-breaking developments and fill those solely at the discretion of the
organizers and director.
Danielle Cunniff Plumer
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Joseph Montibello <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If something like this were implemented, maybe waiting until after the
> voting was done would be helpful. Diversify the program by looking at what
> was selected in voting and then filling gaps as perceived by the program
> And/or having the committee/group/whatever it is that's working on a
> policy now participate in that process.
> Anyway, just my two cents.
> Joe Montibello, MLIS
> Library Systems Manager
> Dartmouth College Library
> [log in to unmask]
> On 11/27/12 11:14 AM, "Cynthia Ng" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Here's something that came up during the program committee meeting.
> >While I understand why code4lib has traditionally decided on the
> >program purely by voting, would the community support leaving maybe a
> >couple of slots for the program committee to decide sessions? perhaps
> >with the explicit goal to help diversify the program: whether it be by
> >gender, ethnicity, technology/tool, point of view (e.g someone outside
> >library/archives), etc.
> >People tend to vote for their interest and what is familiar to them,
> >that's only natural, but at past Access conferences for example, I
> >have found some that I never would've voted (just based off of a
> >description) as some of the most interesting talks I've seen.
> >Sometimes it's the topic, sometimes it's the presenter, regardless, if
> >we want to diversify, it's a small step to take, but one I think we
> >should at least consider for code4libcon 2014.