[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] need your opinion about a speaker/submission issue
|
+1 (for using a clearer and stronger language)
I am not sure how we can tell the difference ? Do the third party with some bugzilla account submit the talk for other speakers or does the third party just create a bugzilla account under the speakers name.
There might also be a technical solution to this. Just force the logged in person to be one of the speakers in the submission entries. There are some variations how to do this. Either suggest that and allow the speaker to be removed or not allow a submission if the logged in person is not one of the speakers. I leave that up to Ian to decide or whether to do that at all…..
christian
I would suggest we have clearer and stronger language. Something like the following:
"All speaking proposals needs to be submitted by one of the speakers. Please do not have a third party enter your talk. We value speakers that want to be involved in our community."
I really find submissions from PR firms are typically low quality and the speaker is not engaged.
Ian
On 7/4/2012 4:33 AM, Campo, Christian wrote:
I think its good to encourage people to submit talks themselves. I am struggeling a little with the word "detriment".
Maybe its just my english but I had to look it up in the dictionary and it seems to have a kind of vague meaning.
Do we mean its a disadvantage or is it a blocker ?
Maybe we can make that clearer and easier to understand for non-native english speakers like myself.
Other than that if you mean its a disadvantage and like to place it as a warning that I am +1.
christian
+1
I don't think we will miss any good talks when we drop this kind of submissions.
Achim
On 03.07.2012, at 19:45, Anne Jacko wrote:
Hi all -- each conference we have a small number of talks that are sent in NOT by the speaker, but by someone who is working for the speaker -- often someone working for a marketing firm hired by the speaker's company.
Our submission system isn't set up for this, and it causes a number of problems that are a PITA to sort out. But the worse issue IMHO is that these speakers tend to be unengaged with the conference. They don't care if they get emails from us, they don't
read what we send out, they take a long time to sign their speaker agreements, and sometimes their company will ask to send a substitute speaker after the talk has been accepted.
Ian and I once discussed adding some text to the submissions info saying something like "having your talk submitted by a third party is a detriment to its being accepted; our community values speakers who are involved and active participants."
What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Thanks.
Anne Jacko
Eclipse Foundation
503-784-3788 (cell)
<100x80.png>
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: www.compeople.de
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
