Some talk submission thoughts
The summer conference submission season is slowly subsiding and after reading through a combined total of a few thousand submissions I’ve got some hastily compiled thoughts. But before we get started, a disclaimer: I don’t publicly present. My views on this are from the perspective of a submission reviewer and audience member. And remember, we want to say yes. We have slots to fill and there’s nothing more satisfying than giving a new speaker a chance and seeing the feedback consist of nothing but 10’s. Hopefully some of these points will help me say yes to you in the future.
Firstly I’ll address one of the most common issues, even when it’s not a completely fair one - people submitting on the subject their employer focuses on. As an organiser you want your speakers to have solid and wide experience on their chosen topic and it’s often easier to find those depths in people that live and breath a certain thing day in and day out. However it’s easy to submit what appears to be a vendor sales pitch. In non-anonymised submissions there will always be a moment of “This company has product / service in that area. Is this a sales pitch?” Audiences have paid for their tickets and being trapped for a 45 minute white paper spiel is a sure way to fill the twitter stream with complaints.
To balance that I’m much more careful when dealing with those kind of submissions. Despite my defensive watchfulness there are things you can do to make it easier to say yes. If it’s unrelated to your paid work but in the same industry, say so. You should also state how the talk relates to your product. Is it a feature overview for enterprise customers or all generic theory anyone can use? Be explicit about how much of the talk is product specific, “20 minutes on the principles, 10 on the open source offerings and 10 on the enterprise product additions” might not be exactly what I want to see but it’s better than my assumption. I should also note no matter how much it hurts your chances you should be honest. Event organisers chat. A lot of the Velocity program chairs know each other outside of work, there’s a lot of cross over between DevOpsDays events and London isn’t that big. If you’re given the benefit of the doubt and you were less than honest then good luck in the future. As an aside this also applies to sponsors. We know who’s a joy to deal with and who’s going to keep us dangling for 8 months.
Onto my next bugbear. Submissions that include things like “8 solutions to solving pipeline problems.” If you have a number in your submission topic or introduction and don’t tell me what they are in the body of the submission I’ll assume you don’t know either. Context and content are immensely important in submissions and it’s so hard to highly rate a talk with no actual explanation of what it’s covering. If you say “The six deadly secrets of the monkey king” then you better list those six secrets with a little context on each or expect to be dropped a point or three. The organisers probably won’t be in the session and without enough context to know what the audience will be seeing, neither will you.
My third personal catch is introducing a new tool at a big event. Unless you’re someone like Hashicorp or AWS then you need to be realistic about your impact. I will google technologies and programs I don’t recognise in submissions and if the entire result set is your GitHub page and some google group issues then it’s probably not ready for one of the bigger events. Instead start at a user group or two. A couple of blog posts and then maybe something bigger at a site like dzone or the new stack. Build some buzz and presence so I can tell that people are adopting it and finding merit. There’s often an inadvertent benefit to this, a lot of user groups record and upload their sessions and this is great benefit for after the anonymised stage of the reviews. Being able to see someone present and know that they can manage an audience and don’t look like they are about to break into tears for 25 minutes is reassuring and a great presentation style can help boost your submission.
Other than my personal idiosyncrasies there are a few things you should always consider. What’s the audience getting out of this? Why are you the person to give it to them? What’s the actionable outcome from this session? You don’t have to be a senior Google employee but you do need to have an angle on the material. This is especially true on subjects like career paths or health issues where it’s easy to confuse personal anecdotes with data. Does your employer have evangelists or advocates that spend a large amount of their time presenting or reviewing submissions? If so reach out and ask them for a read through. It’s in their interests to not see 10 submissions from the same company that all get rejected for not having enough information to be progressed. I wouldn’t normally single someone out but if, as an example, you’re working for Microsoft and submitting to a conference, especially a DevOpsDays, and you’ve not asked Bridget Kromhout to review your submission then you’re missing a massive opportunity. She’s seen everything get submitted at least once and can nearly always find something constructive to improve. There’s probably a similar person at many large tech companies and getting their opinion will almost always help the process.
In general it’s a pleasure to read so many thoughtful submissions but with just a little bit more effort in the right places it becomes a lot easier to get the reviewers to say yes. And then comes the really difficult part for us.