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).