Curious how many proposals #shmoocon received for talks, vs how many speaking slots they have. Anyone? (cc @myrcurial)
@drbearsec @jadedsecurity @darthnull The CFP team seeing abstracts without names I think would be the best way to do it for any con.
-
-
@attritionorg@drbearsec@darthnull I totally agree. I'd love to see Shmoo try something like that. Although it could be skewed as well -
@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@darthnull 1 CFP person should review only based on name, rest only based on abstract.#ideal -
@attritionorg@drbearsec@darthnull yeah. Or even put up for a community vote.#ideal -
@jadedsecurity@attritionorg@drbearsec@DarthNull WOAH, Community Vote? What do you think this is#BSidesPGH? -
.
@integgroll That's cool#BSidesPGH does community, another BSides does blind review.#fan -
@attritionorg I know it will just make me seem a sore loser, but I thought it was blind going in, and really don't see a better way. -
@integgroll Blind or community, I would guess are largely more fair to submitters. Hard to prove that either way though. -
@attritionorg I really think community with or without names can cause the conference to drift from what the organizers want talk wise. - 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg Doing blind reviews is hard if part of your mission is to get new ppl the chance to present. -
@gdead Blind isn't good for all conferences, especially if they have a theme or a goal like that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg@jadedsecurity@darthnull I tend to agree. That's the preferred method for academic journals to eliminate bias.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.