On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Jay Luker <[log in to unmask]> 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.
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.
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]>
>> > 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.