Re: [UG-ADMINS] OpenCFP but....smaller?

A few thoughts.

From a speaker point of view:

1. I think this adds a lot of pressure to an already stressful CfP process. 

2. I feel this benefits the more popular speakers who can get their followers to comment positively on their talks whereas a newer speaker would not be able to pull as much public commentary (similar to how speakers ask their Twitter followers to vote for their Confoo talks). 

3. As a female speaker who has issues with inappropriate comments being left in feedback after my talks, I wonder if this would just be another venue for people to leave inappropriate comments about me publicly or for people to judge me by my minority status instead of by my talk and qualifications. 

4. I think requiring Git usage to submit a talk would exclude people who don't know how to use it, and to be honest, it is not an easy system to just pick up if you are not at all familiar with how it works. 

5. There may be privacy issues with speakers who do not want people to know what their application contains (like a request for reimbursement because they can't afford it, location of their home airport, etc.) 

6. May negatively impact speakers if conferences can see that they have submitted to a conflicting or rival conference.

From a conference organizer point of view:

1. There are often more things that need to be accounted for besides audience interest in a topic. For instance, it may be a topic the audience needs to be exposed to even if they aren't initially interested. It may be a necessary talk because of budget constraints on speaker travel. This system doesn't leave much room for that.

2. I can imagine this would lead to lots of whining/criticisms/accusations about how one speaker got more votes but didn't get in, etc. 

3. Makes it more difficult to integrate into your website as you'd have to import the data from Git, and the data is not being constrained in how it is formatted, so there may be no standardization in the formatting. 

Cheers,
Beth

Beth Tucker Long
Treeline Design, LLC
807 Arbor Vitae Place
Verona, WI 53593
608-770-6677
http://www.TreelineDesign.com

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 22:08, Evan Coury <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Out of curiosity, how would folks feel about an actual conference doing
> something like this? Is there a consensus on how *speakers* feel about more
> open/public CFP processes? I imagine attendees will typically appreciate
> the transparency.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Kristopher <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> I like this idea. Instead of issues, you can have them open a Pull Request
>> to have their talk added to the "Talks" page. Accept their PR if you want
>> them to talk, close it if you don't want them to. People can comment and
>> give feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Sundquist <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> You could also use github and have people log issues.  Then you can allow
>>> people comment on them if they thing its a good talk or not.
>>