[yapc] Talk submissions are closed

Rob Kinyon rob.kinyon at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 11:17:46 PDT 2010

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Walters <scott at slowass.net> wrote:
>> Rob,
>> I know you meant well by this, but please, NEVER encourage anyone to
>> do their not-accepted long talk as a lightning talk.  It simply won't
>> fit in the time allotted, and makes the speaker look like a desperate
>> fool.  A lightning talk is a completely different beast from any other
>> kind, and is something you write from the ground up as a lightning
>> talk.
>> Cheers,
>> David.
> I'd like to politely descent here.  Having a full length talk rejected
> is not a sure indication that that speaker should not be speaking,
> period.  The organizers do their best based on knowledge of speakers
> and audiance interests to pick the best talks.  This is an approximate
> process.  Rejection does not indicate universal comdenation by the
> community.
> And even if the speaker would be making a fool of himself by overtly
> promoting something, demonstrating profound ignorance of important
> matters, being even new to Perl, new to the format, having poorly
> adapted a talk -- putting in for a Lightning Talks is *still*
> appropriate.  He might not be accepted for that either, but as
> Lightning Talks were explained to me, it is a not inappropriate
> venue for just standing up and saying "hi, I'm new to the Perl
> community, these are my first impressions" or so on.
> Again, I don't expect to change your opinion of how these matters
> should or do work, and likewise, please excuse me for interjecting
> my conflicting opinion here and taking the chance to continue to
> encourage everyone with every stupid idea to continue to put in
> for Lighting Talks, no matter what.

I think a key point here is that I DID NOT REJECT ANY TALKS. *pants* :)


More information about the yapc mailing list