Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#101

Post by rhizome » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #88

autarch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see these two goals as being mutually exclusive. Even if they are, it'd be good to aim for a balance, rather than just choosing one entirely over the other. They're both good goals for a conference.

Many people don't agree with me and that's OK. I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. The number one priority should be having thought provoking, relevant, and high impact talks about technology at a technology conference. Seeing these talks and engaging in conversations about the technology should be the number one priority for attendees. Ideas are what…

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology.

Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively?

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#102

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #101

gnarbarian wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't agree with me and that's OK. I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. The number one priority should be having thought provoking, relevant, and high impact talks about technology at a technology conference. Seeing these talks and engaging in conversations about the technology should be the number one priority for attendees. Ideas are what…

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively?

>Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively?

It sure sounds like you're trying to do that right now.

Can you explain to me why using race/demographics as a means to sideline and devalue my opinion isn't the highest form of hypocrisy in this context?

In other words... Isn't your question a perfect example of you "applying those checkboxes" to me negatively?

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#103

Post by st3v3r » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:01 PM UTC

natmaster wrote: post #93

mivok wrote: post #22

A lot of the comments here are complaining about the last point in the article (the n00b), asking how on earth you get started if you have to have presented before in order to present. The article is telling you exactly how to do that: - Speak at local user group meetings. Most of my local meet ups are constantly calling for speakers, and it's an excellent way to get practice at presenting in a lower stress environme…

The problem with these smaller groups is you have no proof you did anything there and were any good. I got rejected to PyCon one year for this very reason - and I have tons of experience speaking at smaller conferences. (Note: The reason is not speculation as they tell you in a rejection email.)

Can't you record those talks and send them in with your proposal?

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#104

Post by samstokes » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #88

autarch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see these two goals as being mutually exclusive. Even if they are, it'd be good to aim for a balance, rather than just choosing one entirely over the other. They're both good goals for a conference.

Many people don't agree with me and that's OK. I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. The number one priority should be having thought provoking, relevant, and high impact talks about technology at a technology conference. Seeing these talks and engaging in conversations about the technology should be the number one priority for attendees. Ideas are what…

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes

Then you are not the audience those "demographic checkboxes" are there for. (Neither am I.)

I'm a white male engineer, and I've never had the experience of going to a tech conference and wondering whether I'm supposed to be there because I don't see anyone else who looks like me. That experience is common for engineers who are women, POC, or in various other demographics.

For all I know you might be a member of one of those demographics, but if you "couldn't care less" then I assume you haven't had that experience either. That doesn't affect your right to an opinion, but it does mean you are not fully considering at least one reason that demographic diversity is important.

Ideas are what matter to hackers and engineers.

I haven't met a single hacker or engineer who wasn't also a person, and other things that matter to people include feeling welcome and accepted.

If you're accustomed to feeling welcome and accepted at technical conferences, it's easy to say that feeling welcome and accepted doesn't matter to you at such conferences. If most conferences didn't make you feel that way, it might matter to you more to find one that did.

One way to make people feel welcome and accepted is to reduce the extent to which they feel like the "odd one out", in as many senses as possible.

As autarch points out above, this isn't an argument for accepting any old talk so long as it fills some demographic quota. It would be a strange conference that replaced quality of ideas with demographic diversity in their talk selection criteria. Rather, it just means conferences have more than one criterion to optimise for. Multi-objective optimisation is complicated and involves tradeoffs, but "all or nothing" is unlikely to be optimal.

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#105

Post by st3v3r » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:06 PM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #102

rhizome wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively?

>Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively? It sure sounds like you're trying to do that right now. Can you explain to me why using race/demographics as a means to sideline and devalue my opinion isn't the highest form of hypocrisy in this context? In other words... Isn't your question a perfect example of you "applying those checkboxes" to me neg…

Because you're the one saying race and demographics don't matter, yet you're likely a member of the race and demographic who hasn't had negative experiences because of their race/demographic. You don't think it's important because you've never really had to think about it.

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#106

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #105

gnarbarian wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is it safe to say you're a member of a demographic who has never had those checkboxes applied to them negatively? It sure sounds like you're trying to do that right now. Can you explain to me why using race/demographics as a means to sideline and devalue my opinion isn't the highest form of hypocrisy in this context? In other words... Isn't your question a perfect example of you "applying those checkboxes" to me neg…

Because you're the one saying race and demographics don't matter, yet you're likely a member of the race and demographic who hasn't had negative experiences because of their race/demographic. You don't think it's important because you've never really had to think about it.

>yet you're likely a member of the race and demographic who hasn't had negative experiences because of their race/demographic.

It's funny that you can say that right after someone implied I was a member of an over-represented group and then used that assumption as leverage against me in an argument. So that statement is demonstrably false.

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#107

Post by Kalium » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

samstokes wrote: post #104

gnarbarian wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't agree with me and that's OK. I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes when listening to a talk about technology. The number one priority should be having thought provoking, relevant, and high impact talks about technology at a technology conference. Seeing these talks and engaging in conversations about the technology should be the number one priority for attendees. Ideas are what…

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes Then you are not the audience those "demographic checkboxes" are there for. (Neither am I.) I'm a white male engineer, and I've never had the experience of going to a tech conference and wondering whether I'm supposed to be there because I don't see anyone else who looks like me. That experience is common for engineers who are women, POC, or in various other…

A warm, diverse, welcoming, and accepting technical conference that contains no interesting technical content is less a technical conference and more a purely social gathering. There's really nothing wrong with that, but at that point it's no longer meaningfully a technical conference.

Perhaps there's a desirable balance to be struck here.

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#108

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

slantedview wrote: post #47

> Heartbreaker #4 – The N00b Everyone is a n00b at some time. But being a conference n00b doesn't mean you're not an expert on the subject of your talk, that your content is not original, that you're not an excellent speaker, or that your talk would not be excellent. All it means is that you're a n00b to public conferences. The wholesale discounting of candidate talks based on such narrow criteria is foolish.

[deleted]

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#109

Post by samstokes » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #107

samstokes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally couldn't care less about demographic checkboxes Then you are not the audience those "demographic checkboxes" are there for. (Neither am I.) I'm a white male engineer, and I've never had the experience of going to a tech conference and wondering whether I'm supposed to be there because I don't see anyone else who looks like me. That experience is common for engineers who are women, POC, or in various other…

A warm, diverse, welcoming, and accepting technical conference that contains no interesting technical content is less a technical conference and more a purely social gathering. There's really nothing wrong with that, but at that point it's no longer meaningfully a technical conference. Perhaps there's a desirable balance to be struck here.

That was the point I attempted to convey with my last paragraph:

this isn't an argument for accepting any old talk so long as it fills some demographic quota. It would be a strange conference that replaced quality of ideas with demographic diversity in their talk selection criteria. Rather, it just means conferences have more than one criterion to optimise for. Multi-objective optimisation is complicated and involves tradeoffs, but "all or nothing" is unlikely to be optimal.

Hopefully we can agree that a conference which had interesting technical content and was welcoming to a broad range of people would be better than a conference that had only one or the other.

Re: Why Your Excellent Conference Talk Was Rejected

#110

Post by Kalium » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 11:30 PM UTC

samstokes wrote: post #109

Kalium wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A warm, diverse, welcoming, and accepting technical conference that contains no interesting technical content is less a technical conference and more a purely social gathering. There's really nothing wrong with that, but at that point it's no longer meaningfully a technical conference. Perhaps there's a desirable balance to be struck here.

That was the point I attempted to convey with my last paragraph: this isn't an argument for accepting any old talk so long as it fills some demographic quota. It would be a strange conference that replaced quality of ideas with demographic diversity in their talk selection criteria. Rather, it just means conferences have more than one criterion to optimise for. Multi-objective optimisation is complicated and involves…

In an ideal world, such would be maximally desirable.

Personally, I care about having the most interesting technical ideas and interesting minds at the conferences I choose to attend.