 |
 |
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. > > --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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]> >> 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. >>