After reading Justin Searls of Test Double’s post on Calls for Transparency, it got me thinking. I’m on a variety of conference and event planning committees, and no two events follow the same speaker selection process. These are just some of my personal thoughts and do not reflect the views of the committees that I serve on.
Blind Speaker Selection
None of the speaker selection committees that I’ve served on have used this process. While I like the idea of anonymized submissions for an initial filter, I eventually like to know more about who’s delivering the topic – not necessarily who by name but who by experience. Has this person spoken at conferences of this particular size? If not, have they had significant amount of speaking at conferences or venues smaller than this? If there was a way to convey this information while still somehow maintaining the anonymity of the speaker, I would definitely prefer this method.
This definitely has its pros and cons. For one, it could be a matter of the committee selecting only their friends and their heroes. Or it could be seen elitist and that the committee only wants a certain caliber of speakers, which makes other speakers feel like they aren’t that caliber. It could also be seen that the committee wants the best speakers possible to help ensure the success of their event – so they want the best speakers for their attendees so that the attendees get the best bang for their buck. For the committees I’ve been on that have gone this route, I recommend speakers who are known for their topics and appropriate for the event. While I love my friends, my job on a speaker selection committee isn’t to ensure that they get picked – my job is to make sure I’m selecting people that the attendees will want to hear. As time goes on, this gets harder and harder to do, as there are so many people out there that are great speakers but days are only so long and conferences can only be so long.
Open Call for Speakers, Non-Blind Selection
This is the most common tactic I’ve seen on the committees that I’ve served on. I like it in that it opens the submission process up to the whole community, bringing in speakers that we may not have even known about or even bringing in new speakers who are ready to present at our event’s level (whatever that translates to). This presents some problems though:
- More submissions means more for a committee to filter through and decide on. This can make the process that much more difficult.
- Being non-blind, there’s always the fear of the committee selecting just their friends.
- Being non-blind, there’s also the fear of the diversity factor. People fear being selected (or not selected) because committees may have quotas or ideal mixes in mind.
The Diversity Factor
This is one thing that I’m sure other speaker selection committee members have weighing on them. In a non-blind selection or even in an invite-only selection, you can make sure that your selections meet whatever it is that you’re shooting for – be it mega rockstars, more female presenters, or some other mix. As a female presenter who has been on teams that have tried to take on the diversity factor, I’m begging you other speaker selection types – don’t choose speakers just to meet a quota. If they don’t talk on topics relevant to your event… if they aren’t experienced enough to be speaking at your event…. please, please, please don’t select a speaker just for diversity. While diversity is nice to have, sacrificing the quality of your event at the risk of diversity isn’t necessarily a good idea.
I’m currently on a bunch of planning committees. We have an open call for speakers for SQL Saturday #241 (closing on 12/15); however, our pre-con talk speaker(s) are invited. For PowerShell Saturday 009 in March 2014, we’re still in our early planning stages, and we are reaching out to local PowerShell resources to help find speakers. If you’re interested in speaking at PowerShell Saturday 009 in Toledo, OH, definitely email me or ping me on Twitter. For my event in late March, there are only 2 of us presenting, as it’s a small event and we’re doing it to promote some local groups. As for Stir Trek, just stay tuned to @stirtrek on Twitter or the website for further news, as it’s always an evolving process – what started as invite-only eventually grew to invitations and open call for speakers.
I can only hope other conference organizers see Justin’s call for transparency and get on board with it. I don’t know if there’s a speaker selection process that isn’t subjected to criticism – they all have their merits and pitfalls. But hopefully through transparency we may be able to find a better way of selecting speakers for our events.