Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • It is arguable. Those who are visible most of others are visible because they are active. Yes, sometimes such people might sit silent in the room instead of loudly commenting something, but if the comment is funny, why not?

    As for talks - everyone has an opportunity to submit a talk for the conference. If several people do that year by year, that is good, not bad. If there will be more new speakers, it will be possible to make a decision whose talks should be rejected. In fact, there were not too many talks

    • I agree. There are two issues at play here:

      • The pool of speakers is not unlimited. Submitting a talk proposal takes courage and commitment. So if you see some faces a lot, it is much more likely to be these are the people with the courage and commitment to propose a talk or several talks.

        And if someone is a good speaker, should they refrain from submitting a proposal just because they gave a talk the year before? That makes no sense at all.

      • The organisers of the conference are under some pressure to provide value for the money they take. They must select talks so that the conference will be interesting rather than a disappointment and a waste of time. Under these circumstances, who would you pick: someone who has given 50 talks before and is known to be an excellent speaker, or someone you have never heard of?

        Obviously, the decision will depend on a million other criteria. But being a known variable (and known for value) is inevitably going to give you an edge over other speakers.

        Clearly this bias can be dangerous: things can turn into an old boys’ club. But as long as the organisers are aware of this trap, I see nothing wrong in factoring the reputation and experience of a speaker into their decisions.

      Overall I thought this year’s organisers did an absolutely smashing job of picking talks. YAPC::EU in Vienna was good, but Copenhagen was a class act. Maybe the Danes simply had a better pool of proposals to pick from than the Austrians – I do not know. In any case this conference will be very hard to top.

      • things can turn into an old boys’ club.

        You've hit the nail on the head: that is precisely what irks me. It feels like an old boys' club.

        • Well, as htoug has mentioned, pretty much everybody who has submitted a talk got to talk. There was one exception, where a talk was rejected because it was obviously a commercial pitch.
          So if you have any hard feelings about the conference being an old boys' club, please consider submitting your own talk next time. If your submission will have any merit, I am sure you'll get your slot, and thus make your first step towards becoming an old boy yourself (just kidding).