I agree. I've only been to one Code4Lib so far, but I felt the lightning talks were a fine outlet for those not selected to get an opportunity to still present something. 



Aaron Collier 
Library Academic Systems Analyst 
California State University, Fresno - Henry Madden Library 
559.278.2945 
[log in to unmask] 
http://www.csufresno.edu/library 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:53:57 PM 
Subject: [CODE4LIB] 

On 11/27/2012 4:46 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote: 
> I agree with Tom. If you look at the links Andromeda sent earlier in 
> this thread, both conference organizers reported dramatic increases in 
> the number of under-represented presenters simply by 1) making the 
> proposal authors anonymous during voting 

Hmm, is the proposal author a legitimate (or illegitimate) criteria to 
judge proposals on? I tend to think it's actually legitimate; there are 
some people I know will give a valuable presentation because of who they 
are, and others who's expertise I might trust on some topics but not 
others. 

I don't think this is illegitimate, and wouldn't want to take this 
information away from voters. We are, after all, voting not just on a 
topic, but on a topic to be presented by a certain person or people. 

(I would be quite fine with having some of the program decided upon by 
the program committee not by the voters at large though! Using a variety 
of criteria. In addition to issues of diversity in presenters, I think 
it could also in general improve the quality of presentations and 
topical diversity as well).