-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/16/2013 04:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'm interested in what people think about this.
Right now, when you submit a proposal for a talk (or
hackfest/workshop), the title and abstract are made public, but the
identify of the speaker is not.
The intent was to try to remove bias on voting for the speaker as
opposed to the topic, but several people have disagreed with that
intent.
Should we make the name of the proposed presenter public as well?
(Note that the selection committee was always going to be able to
see the full data including presenter names).
Well, I think it's probably best to continue as we have begun. People
who have filed their proposals with the expectation of anonymity
should not have that expectation changed on them. That might cause
some resentment.
That said, I know that several of the proposals on here are
*effectively* not anonymous for a variety of reasons. In some cases,
there are only a few individuals who would be likely to propose them,
in other cases the proposals were done as the action of a committee
like FESCo, and in yet other cases the writers of the proposals
announced them on their Fedora Planet-syndicated blogs.
So I'd say that we should leave things anonymous unless the submitter
chooses to reveal their identity publicly. I don't think we really
need to display it on the submission page, though.
Actually, I think displaying the authors of the submissions might be
intimidating as well. We'd really like to be seeing submissions from
less-well-known members of the community. (AKA "tomorrow's community
leaders"). I like the idea of seeing all the ideas come in without
being intimidated that they're all being submitted by "famous" people.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlGaHOoACgkQeiVVYja6o6Nc5gCdFv6XNokVjzkOCsbEWXISDzuj
WPcAn1eBHvPOpV45nPVLQCrnSb3oKVFi
=lLar
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----