Why I worry about the future of conference speakers

I speak at a lot of conferences and meet-ups, too many. I shouldn’t complain I’ve got books to sell! I’ve also been involved in organizing many conferences – ACCU, EuroPLoP and Agile on the Beach for the last 10 years. There are some trends emerging which worry me and I want to record. So not my usual blog post but I hope this will interest a few people.

Now so many presentations are done remotely I can speak to groups all over the world, last week I spoke to an internal company group in Florida and a couple of months ago to a meet-up in Sydney. I say Florida and Sydney but the attendees were from all over the world, Florida was just the home of the company and Sydney were the group physically met before you-know-what happened.

Increasingly “big name” speakers – maybe me, certainly people bigger than me, people with serious book sales and name recognition in the tech/agile community – are turning up at local meetings and small conferences which are now online. That is good because these groups get to hear directly from people with big ideas.

But, the fact that the big names (and here I probably include myself) are speaking to such groups means others aren’t. In particular local people, new voices, people just starting on the speaking circuit or people who will probably only ever speak to a few events organised by people they know.

My worry is that as more events move online we are perpetuating the winner-take-all culture and making it harder for new people to get started.

Arguably that is offset by fact that more conferences are reviewing submissions anonymously. However I’m not sure anonymous review is a good thing. As a reviewer I normally have two pieces of information: the talk description and the bio of the submitter. I’m looking for an interesting talk and an interesting speaker. Without the bio I only have the talk description to go on. If I select a big name I know I’m selecting a name, when I’m reviewing someone I don’t know I think of them differently.

Consequently reviews are going to favour those who can write stronger, better, descriptions. It may be naturally talented writers, or those who have had the chance to hone the description over previous submissions and presentations. Again favouring the established speakers.

Adding to that is the fact that some speakers work for companies who will help them prepare talks and descriptions. This is more likely in consultancies – or those successful enough to pay for professional help. One comment I heard from conference attendees regularly is that they prefer to hear from non-consultants, those doing actual work, rather than consultants who may have a service to sell. (There are more consultants on the speaking circuit than non-consultants because they have more time and greater motivation to be seen speaking.)

So while well intentioned anonymous review may end up having the opposite effect of that intended.

Next I’m worried about the increased use of online submission systems which create a common pool of speakers – I’ve thought about this long and hard because I looked into this when developing Mimas years ago.

At first this looks great for speakers because they can easily submit too many different conferences. It is good for conferences too because it simplifies submission and increases the pool of speakers. But again this can back-fire.

I once shared a taxi with a speaker whose next conference was in South Africa. He had never heard of the conference but an online system prompted him to submit and guess what, he was accepted! Great but…

As a conference organizer I’ve had to manage over 300 submissions for less than 40 speaking slots. To do the submitters justice requires a lot of review work. A 1:8 ratio is extreme, most conferences it is closer to 1:3 or 1:4. How many conferences can do that?

The last year I ran Agile on the Beach reviews I had over 50 reviewers. That itself makes more work. How many conferences can handle that? Some conferences don’t even have that many attendees.

I used two review rounds, again more work.

And, to be honest, if I have 30 submissions to review, the one I review first will get more thought than the one I review last. Again those who can craft a good description are more likely to get through.

So, common, pooled, online submission systems will increase the number of speakers. Less work for speakers makes more work for organisers. Either conferences will need to invest more in reviewing work or they will end up taking the people they recognise when the cloak of anonymity is raised.

And how are new speakers to improve if they don’t get selected?

Very very few conferences give feedback on submissions to those who submit and are not selected. And as the number of submissions rises the work needed to give feedback also rises. (Particularly since raw comments from reviewers often contradict.)

(Perhaps the thing I am most proud of about Agile on the Beach is that I gave feedback to everyone who submitted. That came at a cost to the conference, and even more, at a cost to me. Ultimately I had to write Mimas to do what I wanted to do and that took a lot more work than I was ever prepared to admit to myself.)

Another side-effect of common submission systems is that conferences organisers have easy access to alternative speakers. There has always been a bottomless pit of people wanting to speak but now they are easy to find. This further reduces the speakers power to ask for travel costs, let alone actual payment. Few speakers get paid for speaking at conferences or meet-ups, with luck the organiser can pay travel costs. This already means those who are successful and can afford the time, and travel costs, are at an advantage. (And again favours consultants for whom speaking is marketing. Consultancies may actively encourage their people to speak, while work-a-day companies are frequently less than keen on employees taking time away from work.)

All-in-all I think well intentioned moves (online talks, anonymous review and pooled submmision platforms) are actually making it harder for new voices to get heard. As so often happens in technology the winners win more and a greater divide opens up.

I don’t know what the answers are. Maybe my concerns are misplaced. But I worry.


Subscribe to my blog newsletter and download Continuous Digital for free – normal price $9.99/£9.95/€9.95

The post Why I worry about the future of conference speakers appeared first on Allan Kelly.

Why I worry about the future of conference speakers

I speak at a lot of conferences and meet-ups, too many. I shouldn’t complain I’ve got books to sell! I’ve also been involved in organizing many conferences – ACCU, EuroPLoP and Agile on the Beach for the last 10 years. There are some trends emerging which worry me and I want to record. So not my usual blog post but I hope this will interest a few people.

Now so many presentations are done remotely I can speak to groups all over the world, last week I spoke to an internal company group in Florida and a couple of months ago to a meet-up in Sydney. I say Florida and Sydney but the attendees were from all over the world, Florida was just the home of the company and Sydney were the group physically met before you-know-what happened.

Increasingly “big name” speakers – maybe me, certainly people bigger than me, people with serious book sales and name recognition in the tech/agile community – are turning up at local meetings and small conferences which are now online. That is good because these groups get to hear directly from people with big ideas.

But, the fact that the big names (and here I probably include myself) are speaking to such groups means others aren’t. In particular local people, new voices, people just starting on the speaking circuit or people who will probably only ever speak to a few events organised by people they know.

My worry is that as more events move online we are perpetuating the winner-take-all culture and making it harder for new people to get started.

Arguably that is offset by fact that more conferences are reviewing submissions anonymously. However I’m not sure anonymous review is a good thing. As a reviewer I normally have two pieces of information: the talk description and the bio of the submitter. I’m looking for an interesting talk and an interesting speaker. Without the bio I only have the talk description to go on. If I select a big name I know I’m selecting a name, when I’m reviewing someone I don’t know I think of them differently.

Consequently reviews are going to favour those who can write stronger, better, descriptions. It may be naturally talented writers, or those who have had the chance to hone the description over previous submissions and presentations. Again favouring the established speakers.

Adding to that is the fact that some speakers work for companies who will help them prepare talks and descriptions. This is more likely in consultancies – or those successful enough to pay for professional help. One comment I heard from conference attendees regularly is that they prefer to hear from non-consultants, those doing actual work, rather than consultants who may have a service to sell. (There are more consultants on the speaking circuit than non-consultants because they have more time and greater motivation to be seen speaking.)

So while well intentioned anonymous review may end up having the opposite effect of that intended.

Next I’m worried about the increased use of online submission systems which create a common pool of speakers – I’ve thought about this long and hard because I looked into this when developing Mimas years ago.

At first this looks great for speakers because they can easily submit too many different conferences. It is good for conferences too because it simplifies submission and increases the pool of speakers. But again this can back-fire.

I once shared a taxi with a speaker whose next conference was in South Africa. He had never heard of the conference but an online system prompted him to submit and guess what, he was accepted! Great but…

As a conference organizer I’ve had to manage over 300 submissions for less than 40 speaking slots. To do the submitters justice requires a lot of review work. A 1:8 ratio is extreme, most conferences it is closer to 1:3 or 1:4. How many conferences can do that?

The last year I ran Agile on the Beach reviews I had over 50 reviewers. That itself makes more work. How many conferences can handle that? Some conferences don’t even have that many attendees.

I used two review rounds, again more work.

And, to be honest, if I have 30 submissions to review, the one I review first will get more thought than the one I review last. Again those who can craft a good description are more likely to get through.

So, common, pooled, online submission systems will increase the number of speakers. Less work for speakers makes more work for organisers. Either conferences will need to invest more in reviewing work or they will end up taking the people they recognise when the cloak of anonymity is raised.

And how are new speakers to improve if they don’t get selected?

Very very few conferences give feedback on submissions to those who submit and are not selected. And as the number of submissions rises the work needed to give feedback also rises. (Particularly since raw comments from reviewers often contradict.)

(Perhaps the thing I am most proud of about Agile on the Beach is that I gave feedback to everyone who submitted. That came at a cost to the conference, and even more, at a cost to me. Ultimately I had to write Mimas to do what I wanted to do and that took a lot more work than I was ever prepared to admit to myself.)

Another side-effect of common submission systems is that conferences organisers have easy access to alternative speakers. There has always been a bottomless pit of people wanting to speak but now they are easy to find. This further reduces the speakers power to ask for travel costs, let alone actual payment. Few speakers get paid for speaking at conferences or meet-ups, with luck the organiser can pay travel costs. This already means those who are successful and can afford the time, and travel costs, are at an advantage. (And again favours consultants for whom speaking is marketing. Consultancies may actively encourage their people to speak, while work-a-day companies are frequently less than keen on employees taking time away from work.)

All-in-all I think well intentioned moves (online talks, anonymous review and pooled submmision platforms) are actually making it harder for new voices to get heard. As so often happens in technology the winners win more and a greater divide opens up.

I don’t know what the answers are. Maybe my concerns are misplaced. But I worry.


Subscribe to my blog newsletter and download Continuous Digital for free – normal price $9.99/£9.95/€9.95

The post Why I worry about the future of conference speakers appeared first on Allan Kelly.

CppCon 2019 Trip Report and Slides

Having been back from CppCon 2019 for over a week, I thought it was about time I wrote up my trip report.

The venue

This year, CppCon was at a new venue: the Gaylord Rockies Resort near Denver, Colorado, USA. This is a huge conference centre, currently surrounded by vast tracts of empty space, though people told me there were many plans for developing the surrounding area.

There were hosting multiple conferences and events alongside CppCon; it was quite amusing to emerge from the conference rooms and find oneself surrounded by people in ballgowns and fancy evening wear for an event in the nearby ballroom!

There were a choice of eating establishments, but they all had one thing in common: they were overpriced, taking advantage of the captured nature of the hotel clientelle. The food was reasonably nice though.

The size of the venue did make for a fair amount of walking around between sessions.

Overall the venue was nice, and the staff were friendly and helpful.

Pre-conference Workshop

I ran a 2-day pre-conference class, entitled More Concurrent Thinking in C++: Beyond the Basics, which was for those looking to move beyond the basics of threads and locks to the next level: high level library and application design, as well as lock-free programming with atomics. This was well attended, and I had interesting discussions with people over lunch and in the evening.

If you would like to book this course for your company, please see my training page.

The main conference

Bjarne Stroustrup kicked off the main conference with his presentation on "C++20: C++ at 40". Bjarne again reiterated his vision for C++, and outlined some of the many nice language and library features we have to make development easier, and code clearer and less error-prone.

Matt Godbolt's presentation on "Compiler Explorer: Behind the Scenes" was good and entertaining. Matt showed how he'd evolved Compiler Explorer from a simple script to the current website, and demonstrated some nifty things about it along the way, including features you might not have known about such as the LLVM instruction cost view, or the new "run your code" facility.

In "If You Can't Open It, You Don't Own It", Matt Butler talked about security and trust, and how bad things can happen if something you trust is compromised. Mostly this was obvious if you thought about it, but not something we necessarily do think about, so it was nice to be reminded, especially with the concrete examples. His advice on what we can do to build more secure systems, and existing and proposed C++ features that help was also good.

Barbara Geller and Ansel Sermersheim made an enthusiastic duo presenting "High performance graphics and text rendering on the GPU for any C++ application". I am excited about the potential for their Copperspice wrapper for the Vulkan rendering library: rendering 3D graphics portably is hard, and text more so.

Andrew Sutton's presentation on "Reflections: Compile-time Introspection of Source Code" was an interesting end to Monday. There is a lot of scope for eliminating boilerplate if we can use reflection, so it is good to see the progress being made on it.

Tuesday morning began with a scary question posed by Michael Wong, Paul McKenney and Maged Michael: "Will Your Code Survive the Attack of the Zombie Pointers?" Currently, if you delete an object or call free then all copies of those pointers immediately become invalid across all threads. Since invalid pointers can't even be compared, this can result in zombies eating your brains. Michael, Paul and Maged looked at what we can do in our code to avoid this, and what they are proposing for the C++ Standard to fix the problem.

Andrei Alexandrescu's presentation on "Speed is found in the minds of people" was an insightful look at optimizing sort. Andrei showed how compiler and processor features mean that performance can be counter-intuitive, and code with a higher algorithmic complexity can run faster in the right conditions. Always use infinite loops (except for most cases).

I love the interactive slides in Hana Dusikova's presentation "A State of Compile Time Regular Expressions". She is pushing the boundaries of compile-time coding to make our code perform better at runtime. std::regex can be slow compared to other regular expression libraries, but ctre can be much better. I am excited to see how this can be extended to compile-time parsing of other DSLs.

In "Applied WebAssembly: Compiling and Running C++ in Your Web Browser", Ben Smith showed the use of WebAssembly as a target to allow you to write high-performance C++ code that will run in a suitable web browser on any platform, much like the "Write once, run anywhere" promise of Java. I am interested to see where this can lead.

Samy Al Bahra and Paul Khuong presented the final session I attended: "Abusing Your Memory Model for Fun and Profit". They discussed how they have written code that relies on the stronger memory ordering requirements imposed by X86 CPUs over and above the standard C++ memory model in order to write high-performance concurrent data structures. I am intrigued to see if any of their techniques can be used in a portable fashion, or used to improve Just::Thread Pro.

Whiteboard code

This year there were a few whiteboards around the conference area for people to use for impromptu discussions. One of them had a challenge written on it:

"Can you write a requires expression that ensures a class has a member function with a specified signature?"

This led to a lot of discussion, which Arthur O'Dwyer wrote up as a blog post. Though the premise of the question is wrong (we shouldn't want to constrain on such specifics), it was fun, interesting and enlightening trying to think how one might do it — it allows you to explore the corner cases of the language in ways that might turn out to be useful later.

My presentation

As well as the workshop, I presented a talk on "Concurrency in C++20 and beyond", which was on Tuesday afternoon. It was in an intermediate-sized room, and I believe was well attended, though it was hard to see the audience with the bright stage lighting. There were a number of interesting questions from the audience addressing the issues raised in my presentation, which is always good, though the acoustics did make it hard to hear some of them.

Slides are available here.

~trip_report()

So that was an overview of another awesome CppCon. I love the in-person interactions with so many people involved in using C++ for such a wide variety of things. Everyone has their own perspective, and I always learn something.

The videos are being uploaded incrementally to the CppCon YouTube channel, so hopefully the video of my presentation and the ones above that aren't already available will be uploaded soon.

Posted by Anthony Williams
[/ news /] permanent link
Tags: , , , , , ,
Stumble It! stumbleupon logo | Submit to Reddit reddit logo | Submit to DZone dzone logo

Comment on this post

Follow me on Twitter

CppCon 2017 class and presentation on concurrency

I am pleased to announce that I will be running my "Concurrent Thinking in C++" class at CppCon again this year. Here is the course description:

One of the most difficult issues around designing software with multiple threads of execution is synchronizing data.

Whether you use actors, active objects, futures and continuations or mutable shared state, every non-trivial system with multiple threads needs to transfer data between them. This means thinking about which data needs to be processed by which thread, and ensuring that the right data gets to the right threads in the right order. It also means thinking about API design to avoid race conditions.

In this workshop you will encounter a series of scenarios involving multithreaded code, and be guided through identifying the problem areas and the ways of handling them.

You will learn techniques for thinking about the scenarios to ease the analysis, as well as details of the tools we have available in C++ to mitigate the problems. You will also learn how to use the C++ standard library to help enforce the requirements of each scenario in code.

I will also be presenting on "Concurrency, Parallelism and Coroutines":

C++17 is adding parallel overloads of most of the Standard Library algorithms. There is a TS for Concurrency in C++ already published, and a TS for Coroutines in C++ and a second TS for Concurrency in C++ in the works.

What does all this mean for programmers? How are they all related? How do coroutines help with parallelism?

This session will attempt to answer these questions and more. We will look at the implementation of parallel algorithms, and how continuations, coroutines and work-stealing fit together. We will also look at how this meshes with the Grand Unified Executors Proposal, and how you will be able to take advantage of all this as an application developer.

My class is on 17th-18th September, and the main conference is running 19th-23rd, with my presentation on 20th September. If you haven't got your ticket already, head on over to CppCon Registration to get yours now.

Hope to see you there!

Posted by Anthony Williams
[/ news /] permanent link
Tags: , , , ,

| Stumble It! stumbleupon logo | Submit to Reddit reddit logo | Submit to DZone dzone logo

Comment on this post

Follow me on Twitter