Clojure Conj 2011 Call For Speakers Now Open

[Christopher Redinger]

If you are interested in speaking at this year's Clojure Conj, please send us your talk ideas!

Visit http://clojure-conj.org for more details.

--

Christopher Redinger

http://clojure.com

[Sam Aaron]

On 5 Apr 2011, at 19:17, Christopher Redinger wrote:

> If you are interested in speaking at this year's Clojure Conj, please send us your talk ideas!

Are you really requiring two abstracts or is that just a nice bit of cheese?

I only have one topic I'd like to talk about. If that's interesting to the program committee, then great, if not, then that's the way of the world :-)

I could write a number of abstracts representing different approaches to presenting the same core material, but that would seem disingenuous...

Sam

---
http://sam.aaron.name

[Armando Blancas]

> I could write a number of abstracts representing different approaches to presenting the same core material, but that would seem disingenuous...

Since you've got the credentials of "an otherwise great speaker",
should your topic be taken they might have you talk about Ruby. Or,
that call for talks makes less sense that it appeared before posted.

[Christopher Redinger]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:29:39 PM UTC-4, Sam Aaron wrote:

Are you really requiring two abstracts or is that just a nice bit of cheese?

We'd really like a minimum of two proposals. Just like last year, we'd like to have a unifying theme throughout the talks. It could end up being the case that we really want Mr Sam Aaron to come and talk, but the one proposal he submitted just doesn't fit into the theme we are weaving with the talks. But if there's some other talk you can give, it might be a better fit.

Of course, I can't force you to propose a second topic. I also don't know how much the committee will ding somebody who choses to only submit one talk. :)

So, if you've only got one, submit it. One's better than none. But, two is better than one. Etc.

[Rayne]

I'm in the same boat as Sam. Only one thing in particular that I'd
care to talk about. I understand the desire for variety, but I'm not
sure the whole multiple abstract requirement thing makes much sense.
You're getting a variety of talks from the people who have two things
to talk about but it could end up being a double edged sword if people
take it the wrong way and don't submit their (presumably awesome) idea
at all because of the two abstract requirement. These people may still
be awesome speakers that simply don't have anything else in mind to
talk about.

Maybe it would make more sense if there was a more sensible rationale
for the requirement. Or maybe I'm just narrow-minded and can't see the
big idea behind it. :\

[Meikel Brandmeyer]

Hi,

just like the others I don't really get the idea behind the two abstracts. Either it doesn't matter who is talking, then you can pick the talks you like. No matter whether she submitted one or two proposals. Or...

Am 06.04.2011 um 02:02 schrieb Christopher Redinger:

> It could end up being the case that we really want Mr Sam Aaron to come and talk,

...you want certain speakers. but then it would be easier to address these Sam Aarons directly, show them the plan and ask: "Would you consider giving a talk with a topic fitting in this scheme?"

It's probably somewhere in between: pick up some proposals and try to "hire" some speakers.

Sincerely
Meikel