I'm in the same boat as Sam. Only one thing in particular that I'd care to talk about. I understand the desire for variety, but I'm not sure the whole multiple abstract requirement thing makes much sense. You're getting a variety of talks from the people who have two things to talk about but it could end up being a double edged sword if people take it the wrong way and don't submit their (presumably awesome) idea at all because of the two abstract requirement. These people may still be awesome speakers that simply don't have anything else in mind to talk about.
Maybe it would make more sense if there was a more sensible rationale for the requirement. Or maybe I'm just narrow-minded and can't see the big idea behind it. :\ On Apr 5, 7:02 pm, Christopher Redinger <redin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:29:39 PM UTC-4, Sam Aaron wrote: > > > Are you really requiring two abstracts or is that just a nice bit of > > cheese? > > We'd really like a minimum of two proposals. Just like last year, we'd like > to have a unifying theme throughout the talks. It could end up being the > case that we really want Mr Sam Aaron to come and talk, but the one proposal > he submitted just doesn't fit into the theme we are weaving with the talks. > But if there's some other talk you can give, it might be a better fit. > > Of course, I can't force you to propose a second topic. I also don't know > how much the committee will ding somebody who choses to only submit one > talk. :) > > So, if you've only got one, submit it. One's better than none. But, two is > better than one. Etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
