Skip to Content

I’m on the team that chooses content for the ASUG Annual Conference, co-located once again this year with Sapphire US, in Orlando FL. In earlier blogs (1/2/3/4) I talked about the selection process, how we solicit abstracts, how we sort through the avalanche of submissions, trying to match the proposed material with our themes for the educational areas, decide which Special Interest Group aligns best with each and every one of the thousands of abstracts, and rank them so we can host the best and the brightest speakers.

The process doesn’t always work as smoothly and easily as we’d like.  People have different styles of communicating their ideas; after reading several paragraphs of buzzwords and lingo we sometimes scratch our heads and wonder “who would understand this and be motivated to attend?”  We can’t base our decision on that first impression, though, as rewrites could make the ideas clearer and more meaningful, so we reach out to peers, call the prospective speakers, and look at history to see how well topics are attended and rated.

Back when I worked for the U.S. government, we would sometimes have to respond to what was called a “Congressional.” This was a letter from a citizen written to their Congressperson or Senator instead of directly to our agency. The elected official would forward the constituent letter, with directions to let them know what we were going to do about the specific problem.  In some cases we were challenged to grasp exactly what perceived slight the citizen was reporting, and whether we could do anything about it.  In other cases, we could not say (in writing) what we thought. Sometimes the writer was a developer (not the software kind, the kind that knocks trees down to build houses); sometimes it was an ecologist (not the EcoHub kind, the kind that has trees and doesn’t want said developer to knock said trees down). In all cases, our responses were designed to keep the “Congressional” happy, since they voted on our budget.  But, the letters we wished we could write were quite humorous (we thought).

After our January meeting, the pressure ratchets up as we finalize our educational tracks and prepare the communications that are a little like the Oscars.  Only one session can be presented in each room for each time slot.  That might include one or two co-speakers, but the rest of the contenders are going to get rejection notices, or perhaps “stand-by” notices, telling them that they didn’t take first place, though if the winner can’t attend, they could be called up. Like being the runner-up in a beauty contest.  Now, in late February, the notes have gone out, and the political pressure begins.

Despite what ever rules we publish, communications we craft, or announcements we make, we know not everyone deals well with rejection.  I’ve received a number of  “sorry, no room, maybe later” emails over the past decade, as I’ve put in abstracts to speak at the conference, and know it can be disappointing. I have also had to try to explain to friends and colleagues how the process works, why we can’t present 42 sessions about upgrades, much as we’d like to, and how they might draft an abstract for the next cycle.  It isn’t easy saying no.

This year, we got an interesting response from a potential speaker, who was not taking the rejection well (at all), and seemed determined to appeal our decision.  I’m not sure about you, but after hours, days, weeks, okay, months putting together an agenda, I’m not likely to respond well to pressure tactics.  If someone says “what could have made this an acceptable abstract?” I’m sure I’ll help them. But someone who says “you made a bad decision, pick me!” is going to get little help.

People in my office who submitted abstracts have already heard whether they were picked or not, and I can tell them face-to-face if they are not in first place. That’s easier to communicate than emailing someone you might not know, in another part of the world. 

Should you get a response to your proposal saying “sorry, maybe next time” please don’t write to your congressperson.  Look at the accepted proposals, try to learn what audiences are looking for, and move on.

To report this post you need to login first.

3 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Karin Tillotson
    I volunteer with Jim and also am one of the people that select content for the Annual Conference.  I, too, would be much more willing to help someone who asks “what would make an acceptable abstract?” as opposed to pressure tactics and name dropping.  Thanks for writing about this issue.  Karin  
    (0) 
  2. Gretchen Lindquist
    In my years of working on event programs, I, too was in the cross-hairs of prospective speakers, and I observed different forms of lobbying. In some cases, a volunteer colleague might write to me, mentioning an abstract submitted by someone known to them and vouching for the prospective speaker’s bona fides. In cases of new speakers or new subject areas, this kind of lobbying was often helpful.

    On the other hand, some prospective speakers took it upon themselves to contact us and name drop of their alleged support from someone at SAP.  Typically this purported supporter was someone completely unknown to us on our program team. Anyone tempted to try this tactic should be warned that such heavy-handed pressure is generally not effective.

    I have also had alternate speakers get so offended at not being the first choice that they got very sarcastic when they were informed that a place had opened up for their presentation, rejecting our invitation with glee in a tit-for-tat rejection game. If you are fortunate enough to be offered to have your alternate “promoted” to a scheduled time slot, getting snide with us does not leave us with the impression of you as collegial. No matter what happens, please try to roll with the punches and try again next event.

    Gretchen

    (0) 
  3. Srini Tanikella
    While I’ve never been involved in reviewing content / session proposals for the annual conference, I should say that this year’s content is the best! Dawn haymond ( SIG Program chair for Integration technologies and E-business SIG) and all the BITI SIG program chairs have done a wonderful job. I’m just trying to figure out if there is any way for me to attend all the sessions at the same time :>)

    I will be there at the ITEB sessions – for anyone looking to enter the Process Integration (PI) world, the ASUG annual conference is the perfect opportunity. Great content on PI…Also, don’t miss the ITEB Webcast series starting on March 11th..Blogs will follow.

    Regards,
    Srini 

    (0) 

Leave a Reply