 |
 |
Well, this is the fundamental problem, innit? I have little doubt that a fully curated program would be more interesting to more attendees than the current system. It would also, presumably, be more diverse. The problems are: a) The program committee would need to fairly vet all the proposals, and recruit presenters to offer subjects that are desired, but aren't proposed. This would be a non-trivial bit of work. b) Program committee members would need a good supply of sling and arrow repellant and an exceedingly thick skin. Thanks, Cary On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Cynthia Ng <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I'm really glad to see this discussion continuing. It seems like >> there's a good amount of support for at least giving a certain amount >> of sessions over for the program committee to decide. >> > > Frankly, I'd favor letting them decide *all* of the sessions, the logic > being that the only reason for a program committee to exist in first place > is to put together a program. > > Don't get me wrong. I like approval voting. I like the idea of putting on > what people want. But that's not the same as putting on what people ask for. > > When you ask a decent sized population what they want, they'll ask for > things they know they want to learn and people they want to hear from. > What's wrong with that? For starters, it encourages intellectual > inbreeding. Problems, technologies, etc, that affect more people are > favored while things with a more select appeal get deemphasized. But IMO, > the reason to go to c4l is not to learn about X or Y, but to expose > yourself to people and things that were totally off your radar. > > Secondly, the program should be a coherent whole, not a collection of > parts. People choose sessions individually without any knowledge of what > else will be on the program. Balance can only be achieved by accident or if > someone is making it happen (i.e. the program committee). People shouldn't > just be submitting things -- the committee should identify talented > individuals who aren't already known and actively recruit them. They should > directly suggest topics to people who know something but have trouble > recognizing how much their ideas would benefit the community. By taking a > much more active role in recruiting presentations, the program committee > can mitigate the self selection issue as well as tackle the diversity issue > head on. It's not like the process wouldn't still be community driven since > anyone can be on the program committee. > > As far as the 15% target goes, I think that's a decent goal but would hope > it would be much higher in practice. This conference is all about > participation and sharing. At the first c4l, 100% of the sessions were by > first time attendees. I seem to remember that the vast majority of the > people attending were on the stage at some time. Besides, a lot of people > do their best work early in their careers. > > And to all the people reading this who feel shy/intimidated about jumping > in, you're too respectful of the status quo. There are a lot of dedicated > people who really know what they're doing. But you should never be afraid > to call things as you see them. If everyone in a group you like thinks one > thing, and you think another, that doesn't make you wrong -- to believe > otherwise is a substitute for thinking. Creative spark rather than > technical skill is what moves us forward and many of the people who appear > very established were regarded as yahoos not that long ago. > > To summarize, I favor having the program committee decide the whole program > and think their process should be informed by voting and goals of the > community. > > kyle -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com