{"id":2450,"date":"2019-06-12T14:30:04","date_gmt":"2019-06-12T19:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/2019.us.wordcamp.org\/?p=2450"},"modified":"2019-07-11T08:44:59","modified_gmt":"2019-07-11T13:44:59","slug":"past-vs-present-how-were-evolving-the-speaker-selection-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/us.wordcamp.org\/2019\/past-vs-present-how-were-evolving-the-speaker-selection-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Past vs Present: How We\u2019re Evolving the Speaker Selection Process"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The spirit of WordCamps is to hear from a diverse group of people on a diverse group of topics relevant to those who use and make WordPress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

WordCamps are organized by volunteers. The number of volunteer hours that go into planning, organizing, and producing any WordCamp are vast. For flagship camps, like WordCamp US, the number of organizers and volunteer hours goes through the roof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an effort to select the best content possible for WCUS 2019 and<\/em> to be a good steward of volunteer hours, we (the Programming Team) are experimenting with a new speaker selection process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Because transparency is important, we\u2019d like to share the new process with you in advance of our presenter announcement later this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Ray<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Speaker submissions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the past, there was no limit on the number of sessions a potential speaker could submit. While this allowed for a single speaker to present multiple talk ideas for consideration, the result was 500+ talks submitted in 2018 — each one requiring review and consideration by multiple organizers<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For WCUS 2019, we decided to limit speaker submissions to two talks per person. The idea was to encourage speakers to submit only their strongest ideas. The result was a considerable reduction in talk submissions (230 talks submitted) but<\/em> <\/strong>an overall increase in the quality of those submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The review team<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the past, all organizers were part of the review process. While this ensured diversity of experience among the reviewers, there were a couple of less than ideal issues this produced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. A lot of organizers participating meant each individual contributing additional volunteer hours to covering reviewing over 500 talks.<\/li>
  2. Organizers were reviewing talk submissions on topics outside of their core areas of expertise. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    For WCUS 2019, we took each talk category (i.e. Development, Design, Accessibility, etc.) and requested the organizers to review only talks within their sphere of experience. This accomplished two things:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Reduction in overall hours needed (i.e. each volunteer is reviewing talks in a maximum of 3-4 categories)<\/li>
    2. Increase in diversity of topics that \u201crise to the top.\u201d With volunteers only reviewing topics in their area of expertise, it was easier not only to identify the best in each category of submissions, but also to get a strong representation across all categories.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \"Rian<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Are the reviews really blind?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      A \u201cblind review\u201d means that any personally-identifying information is stripped from the talk submission, giving reviewers a chance to honestly assess the quality of the submission without the bias of knowing who submitted it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Naturally, talks are submitted with names. One of the lead organizers exported all of this data into a spreadsheet and removed the speaker names and locations. The programming team leads then reviewed the spreadsheet and removed any \u201crogue\u201d references to speakers or locale mentioned in the talk description or notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      While it\u2019s inevitable that a reviewer who\u2019s been around the WordPress community for awhile might recognize a topic or description and associate it with a speaker, every effort was made to make the talk selection process about the quality of the content, not the identity of the speaker.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Scoring, Round 1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      In the past, voting on talk submissions was binary: Thumbs up or thumbs down. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This year, voting was conducted on a 3-point scale:<\/p>\n\n\n\n