Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just > allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going > through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate?
I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather liberally anyway. We'd like people to submit talks before deadlines (that's why there are deadlines). We recognize that topics come up at the last minute and we look for ways to accommodate them. We are under some pressure to get the schedule out far enough in advance that people can plan around the meeting. Which means there are fewer slots available at the last minute (reviews for this meeting started in early august). It's not fair to bump existing speakers, though sometimes there are cancellations. We have been successful enough at recruiting speakers that we do have to turn some away. This isn't academia we don't have a 4 to 1 or 8 to 1 acceptance rate it's more like 1.4 to 1 > Steve > >> >
