 |
 |
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 dcplumer associates On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Joseph Montibello < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Cynthia++ > > 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 > committee. > > 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 > 603.646.9394 > [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. > > >