|Me in the backstage of djangoday 2012|
I had the joy of organizing a couple of conf with my fellows of WebDeBs. After been an attendee in many conferences and a speaker at some of them it has been a very nice and playful experience be in the staff.
This Year I submitted a CFP for the DjangoCon.eu. They had a fancy and democratic way of selecting CFPs:
- Anonymise submissions, to eliminate bias.
- The first round of voting is yours: we invite Django community to rate anonymised topics on a scientific 3-point scale (“meh”, “yay”, “MUST HAVE”).
- De-anonymise for the final selection.
Another point is about how to deal with submitters. Submitting a CFP involve some work and a bit of courage or pride. Even if a talk proposal is discarded the author should be handled kindly, at least, for the interest and the effort in submitting it. Playing dead and then publish the agenda with the "winners" is poor communication and community management.
It happened to me today. I have submitted a talk for FOSDEM 2013 on 17/12/2012.
One pythonic client to bind them allToday, looking at planet python I discovered that the agenda for the python track was published. It's not a ego problem. The selected talk are "super good" but an email with a simple email to inform a discarded submitter before publishing the agenda would have shown a better understanding about the fact that no one likes to be rejected.
Description: Unleash the power of python Metaprogramming with some building tricks to maintain a flexible client for third party API (especially web, restful ones). This won't put an end to functional dependency madness, but it will bring some technical sanity.
These are my two cents.