Curious how many proposals #shmoocon received for talks, vs how many speaking slots they have. Anyone? (cc @myrcurial)
@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. -
@integgroll Yes, that would be a problem with community, IF the con has a specific theme that year. -
@attritionorg Agreed, which it seems that the con in question this year did. But if I submit to a con, I am already going either way. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg I'd be interested to see how the addition of a poster fair would work at a security con. I like them in the academic cons -
@TheSuggmeister As in a room that has presenters instead of vendors, giving lightning talks as people come around? -
@attritionorg yep. Well, accepted posters anyway. Really good for finding people researching similar topics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@darthnull Who reviewsbased on name? I reject anything named w/ cyber & rated on desire to see talk -
@soapturtle@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@darthnull There are cons that accept based on name w/o a topic. $BigName TBA <- seriously -
@attritionorg@soapturtle@jadedsecurity@drbearsec I can accept that, under certain circumstances. But they better damned well deliver. -
@DarthNull@attritionorg@jadedsecurity@drbearsec All talks had damned well deliver imo, or everyone is wasting their time and money.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@darthnull interesting discussion. We're looking at double-blind CFP for@BsidesDC like@attritionorg's suggestion -
@mtezna@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@BsidesDC@attritionorg Love to see it happen. Try extra hard to get evals from all, write up results! -
@DarthNull@mtezna@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@BsidesDC If not blind, con should post the CFP team and specify it was not blind. -
@attritionorg@mtezna@jadedsecurity@drbearsec@BsidesDC Could be an interesting discussion at 0wn The Con. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg@jadedsecurity@drbearsec But I also think that some borderline responses might rightly advance based on submitter’s history.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.