4 ms·
Do you think a name blinded review process would yield a different result? I've never run a tech conference but it would not surprise me if ~95% of submitted te
by jiggy2011 14y ago
Do you think a name blinded review process would yield a different result? I've never run a tech conference but it would not surprise me if ~95% of submitted technical talks were from men.
If you name-blind the review process you would still expect to get 95% men unless there is a higher % of women submitting talks and being rejected because they are women.
The quoted article suggests doing the opposite of name-blinding and actively looking for female talks in the pile.
- sliverstorm 14y agoThis boils down to the age-old question; "equitable vs. equal".
- juridatenshi 14y agoBlinding combined with active outreach to get more people to submit to a CFP has helped several conferences improve their numbers. GoGaRuCo is the one that immediately comes to mind.
- j_s 14y agoI never did follow up to see how DjangoCon 2013 turned out... looks like you're about right. http://2013.djangocon.eu http://2013.djangocon.eu https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5036457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5036457 > Everybody can vote for DjangoCon 2013 presentations (Github required) > The voting is deliberately anonymous at this first stage.
- theoretick 14y agoI have sat on organizational committees and name-blinding would not work for some of us for one key reason: We use speaker's name/identity as a criteria for talk selection. Two main examples are whether they have presented before and how "strong" of a speaker they are. We DO use names to discriminate but that often allows us to have "fresh" speakers and keep the lineup somewhat varied. It also allows us to filter for all the other spam-talks; i.e. marketers. It is an issue of priorities but I would easily place quality of presentations over guaranteed blinding to prevent gender-bias selection.