Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:31:09 -0700
Reply-To: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: call for papers: SAS Global Forum 2008
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM hotly replied:
>There are three section because the tutirials have been broken into 2
>sections this year.
But they're still the same number of lectures. Tutorials have fluctuated
back and forth with different names and differnet groupings but it's still
the same deal, with two separate rooms going. The number of talks is
> As to:
>"Bear in mind though that if you have a burning idea for one of these
>sections then the Section Chairs are always glad to hear your suggestions."
>Does this not go against what is stated on the web site for these
>sections... "(No Contributed Submissions Allowed)".
That's not what that line on the website means. It *means*
that you can get yourself invited through other mechanisms,
but you cannot make yourself into an Invited Speaker just
by claiming so on the website.
> Seems to me
>that if I
>or anyone else were to submit an idea this wouldnt hold. Plus, it deters
>people from doing exactly what you and a few others have said to do. Now
>lets say that they did allow me and others to submit ideas against the
>stated policy, wouldnt that make these section like all the rest with the
>exception that they pay for presentors registration.
You're still off the track. Get out of that cactus and get back on
the walkway! :-)
>You stated "but as people move on, someone has to fill the spots left by
>gurus". Exactly, this is what I am worried about not happening, there are
>so many good programmers out there that write really well as well as being
>able to present extremely well. Others need to start and need a chance to
>get started. Seems if the policy of "no contributed summisions allowed"
>wouldnt even give them a fare shake at these sections.
That's not what happens. Or else they'd be out of invited speakers
already. You don't think all the invited speakers at SGF 2007 have
been the sole invited speakers for the last 30 years, do you? No,
you know that's not it. Ask Paul why he was invited. It's not
because he's always an invited speaker.
I didn't start out magically as an invited speaker at SUGIs. I started
out small, like everyone else. People heard me and thought I did a
good job. (Or not. Take your pick. :-) So they made suggestions.
This is why contributed speakers get reviewed and graded.
People who score really well are typically considered as good prospects
for future talks. It is also why invited speakers get reviewed: so that
lousy speakers can be removed from that 'invited' category next
> I personally could
>careless whom writes and presents a paper. I am more interested inthe
>content and how well it is presented.
I have seen 'the big expert' get up and give an absolutely unintelligible
talk that was a phenomenal waste of my time.
I have seen 'the guy next door' get up and do a great job of explaining
a problem and a solution.
But the big expert isn't going to be invited back if he stinks as a
presenter. And the little guy is going to be noticed by the section
chairs and the presentation judges.
I firmly believe that getting
>information out there in a way that people understand and can use, is more
>important than someones ego, pride, or reputation.
Agreed. And while the system is not perfect, I do see this
happening. I see good Contributed presenters being asked to
consider giving an Invited paper. I see good speakers being
consistently asked to speak again. And I see section chairs
notifying speakers what they did well and where they should
try to improve.
Of course, if you hadn't downed 12 margaritas and then punched
Jim Goodnight in the face last year at the kickback party...
:-) :-) :-)
David L. Cassell
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the iím Initiative now.
Itís free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07