[melbourne-pug] PyCon talk selection

[Harriet Dashnow]

One strategy I've seen at other conferences is to have community reviewers.
They would score a smallish number of abstracts (say 5-10) per reviewer,
and give feedback to the program panel. This could help to speed things up
for the program panel by helping them focus on higher-scoring abstracts,
give the community a way of having input, while still leaving the ultimate
selection in the hands of the panel. Depending on the number of willing
community reviewers you could arrange it so each abstract is reviewed by
multiple people.

Just a thought for next year.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Stuart <
andrew.stuart at supercoders.com.au> wrote:

> Online voting clearly doesn’t work as a primary decision making mechanism
> - search for “Boaty McBoatface” to find out why.  However, online voting
> might be worth including as a “point of consideration” for the PyCon
> selection panel, with no obligation for the panel to act on community
> voting tallies.
>
> I understand there were many submissions to speak at PyCon this year.  As
> a matter of curiosity it would be interesting to see what all the proposals
> were - subject and speaker - of course the proposal submitters would need
> to understand their proposal would be made available for public
> input/voting.
>
> as
>
> _______________________________________________
> melbourne-pug mailing list
> melbourne-pug at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
>



-- 
Harriet Dashnow
BSc, BA, MSc (Bioinformatics), PhD candidate
www.harrietdashnow.com/about
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/melbourne-pug/attachments/20160603/ebaadfef/attachment.html>