Just Pointing Out...

[cheshirenoir]

The last few cons have had a programme made almost entirely by suggestions submitted by the public, with the panels that appeared being almost exclusively the ones where volunteers being on them.

Yes, we could probably change the ratios, but we need more volunteers. This does not mean the same old tired people on more panels. That is a path that leads only to darkness.

So if you don't like the makeup of the programme, go round up more volunteers and make them volunteer! Stack the deck. Spoil the programmer for choice. Then (and only then) can you bitch that *insert fanboi preference of the week* doesn't happen enough in the programme.

Comments

[tommmo.livejournal.com]

I don't know about other years, but in 2007 a really sizeable portion of the programme was panels that were devised by me personally, or gained via group brainstorming sessions (where you tend to come up with fairly vague concepts rather than concrete topics). I found that direct submissions from the fan community were much fewer than I expected, no matter how much I asked for people to submit them.

While more people should be submitting fully-formed panels ideas, I think these brainstorming sessions are one of the most important pre-con things, and perhaps shouldn't be left only to those who attend the OPMs. It's possible that cherrypicked focus groups might be a more productive avenue.

You're absolutely right about new panelists, though. This year I rounded up 3 new volunteers, so I feel like I'm on the right track there. I think an important thing to remember is that first-timers don't usually want to go on panels with intimidating, complex topics. Let's give them something straightforward to sink their teeth into.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that is pretty much my experience. I asked for direct submissions from the public, but I didn't get that many. I specifically didn't get submissions on topics where I directly asked for them. A lot panels where made up by me (or angriest or by group effort, not because I think that is the best idea, but because I simply didn't get enough suggestions.

And people who haven't done it don't know how to create a good panel instinctively. Often a little rephrasing or restructuring of a panel can improve it significantly.

[tommmo.livejournal.com]

And of course, once you and your helpers have devised a huge list of panels, you have to actively hunt down panelists to be on all of them. That's another area where people aren't always super-forthcoming.

I think it's also important for more people to submit what they'd like to see, and not just what they think they can run. It gives the programmer more to work with, which is always nice. I've heard a few times people say "I had an idea for a panel, but I wouldn't be able to run it so I didn't tell anyone." People need to be encouraged that it's okay to just throw some ideas out there without feeling responsible for them. This is something I'm planning to focus on next year - lots of panel submissions, whether I can run them or not!

[cheshirenoir.livejournal.com]

Filling programmes is the bit I find the hardest. Ideas - easy. Programme structure - easy. Panelists - hard...

[tommmo.livejournal.com]

Yes indeedy. They will almost never come to you. I think we need a big database of people willing to be panelists and what they know about, so that programmers can just scan through it and find people to ask. Oh how I would've loved such a thing back in 2006 :)

[tommmo.livejournal.com]

(which is not to say we should rely on the same old people being on panels every year, but it's useful to at least know who those people are - something which isn't always the case)

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Yeah, definitely. Hunting down panellists is a huge part of the programmer job. And ideas for good panels without panellists attached are always useful - you are always looking for things like good panel for the guests to be on.

[utopos.livejournal.com]

Maybe a database of members of previous cons (or even better - other cons) who have filled out a fandom knowledge/coverage questionnaire would be a way to go.

Maybe the kind of questionnaire that should be given out at a Swancon membership stand at a Waicon, perhaps?