Thread by @saronyitbarek

As a submitter and reviewer of tech conf talk proposals, the standard CFP process is trash #thread

It's great for seasoned submitters who know exactly what to put in "Abstract" and "Details", who've figured out the formula

which generally comes from already being well networked and knowing other speakers, but it sucks for everyone else, including reviewers

1) It's way too vague. "Abstract" and "Details" are blank canvases. I've seen talks selected that had just a few sentences

with barely enough to picture what the talk would be like. And others who write long (and very many) paragraphs.

And still others that are short, punchy bullet points. This range might seem like a plus (submitters can interpret this field as they like!)

But it's not. It sucks. It means submitters have to read the minds of reviewers to figure out what reviewers expect and want to see

And it means as a reviewer, I have to judge very, very different formats in the same way. Which is impossible.

Which means that the CFP process optimizes for people who've already done a ton of CFPs and already speak a lot.

Which means that the process isn't friendly to first-time speakers, no matter what your website says.

And it's probably not helping your diversity numbers either.

2) It's too easy to bullshit. I've read so many talks that were *obviously* half baked ideas.

I know many speakers who submit multiple talks on topics they know absolutely nothing about.

But because the CFP (usually) only asks for "Abstract" and "Details", you can throw whatever you want in the form, and figure it out later

Which means reviewers have to wade through *so many crappy proposals* to get to the ones where the submitter actually tried

Reviewing talks is exhausting and time consuming.

So if I've just finished reading 10 proposals from the same person who obviously didn't try

then I have a lot less time and energy to give your amazing talk idea a proper reviewer. And everyone loses.

3) It doesn't optimize for what makes a good talk. Talks are powerful because you get a real person talking to you, live, in-person!

There's so much potential for creating an emotional connection, the way that reading a blog post or watching a video doesn't offer

As a speaker, you should think about how you want your audience to *feel* when you're done -- inspired? reflective? determined? empowered?

You should think about what you want your audience to *do* -- try a tool? read a book? code more? code less?

You should have a clear story, which requires having a *problem* that your talk addresses

You should have an *intention* behind your talk -- are you hoping to achieve?

These are the things that make a talk a truly unique and powerful medium, but there's no place to share that in a typical CFP

"Abstract" and "Details" focus on the content of the talk, but not all the other things that make a talk so powerful

It optimizes for good writing, not good talks.

As a reviewer, I've picked talks that sounded amazing on paper! But delivered so poorly in reality, bc all those other elements were missing

Many of the solutions I've heard on making a conference more inclusive focus on outreach and community building, which is important

But the CFP process is a systematic problem that unintentionally excludes a lot of people.

I learned this when I was a PM for a new technical training program at Microsoft and had to design the application.

I talked to a bunch of admissions officers at top colleges who shared what worked in trying to create an inclusive application process

This is what they said that opened my eyes: "You have lots of practice filling out forms. Don't assume your applicants do too."