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

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
[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.