But is interesting that some of names you see a lot on blogs, on stage at the last Ignite, etc. are giving presentations. Could be that they know what works at an Ignite better than others. Or it could be a Blink! phenomenon where there is sub-conscious selection going on, much like conductors did before orchestra tryouts were made blind (directors can only hear, not see the performer).

In this case, I think the selections would be much different if the committee knew nothing about the person submitting a proposal, so that the proposal stood on its own rights alone. Otherwise, and this is just human nature, there will be a subconscious preference for known quantities. Studies have suggested that this can't be helped.

Based on the above report on the selection process, here's my take. Yes, you do need a very strong proposal. Do you need to know people on the committee? Couldn't hurt.

Is it a big deal? No. There's no money at stake and it just entertainment. But it is interesting to see Blink! in action.

There are times, albeit few and far between, when I would love to learn more about what's going on with the Ignite Portland process.

And then there are times, far more often, when I think "These folks spend their free time volunteering to put on a free event that is one of the most consistently entertaining events in Portland. So who cares how they do it? I just hope they keep doing it."

That said, though, Aaron's post (and Josh's comment) will no doubt help people who didn't get picked this time figure out how they could do things better next time around.

The process you described is more or less correct, and we definitely strive for fairness when we pick the talks. But when we get 86 selections and have to narrow it down to 17, it's really, really hard. I'm sorry that some people didn't get picked – I bet that stings, a lot. But we can't pick everyone.

For the record, most of the talks that WERE selected for IP5 were people that none of the organizers knew. We were going off of the comments that people left, googling the person's name, looking for examples of them speaking on YouTube, etc. We were desperate for information on what the person was like – that's why we asked people to "hack the format", and put a video or something up on YouTube as an "attachment" to their proposal. In general, it would have GREATLY helped someone's chances if they had done this, at least to let us know what kind of a presenter they would be based on more than a few sentences of text. But no one chose to do a video or anything "supplemental", so we did the best we could.

If anyone in this thread has any questions about the process, how it works, or any other gripes, suspicions, or anything else, please, let me know, and I'll pass it along to the rest of the Ignite organizers, and get you an answer. jabancroft@gmail.com

Wah.

I don't know the LoT people well. Hell, I've maybe met a couple of them in person once or twice, but that's about it. I don't know if they would have given any sort of preference to people they knew. Frankly, though, I don't have any problem with them doing exactly that.

It's like you implied in your second criteria above: if you know someone's strengths or weaknesses personally, you're in a better position to make a good judgment about their possible presentations. They'd be stupid not to apply that knowledge and lean towards presentations from skilled people they know over strangers with iffy submissions.

And I seriously doubt any of the people making the call would give preference to someone they knew if their submission sucked. They have their own reputations to consider, too, and they know that a shitty presentation will reflect badly on their selection committee.