Voices That Matter: Professional Ruby Conference (Part 1)

I'm headed up to Boston in mid-November to do something I've never done before: chair a technical conference! The event is hosted by my publisher, Addison-Wesley as part of their support and promotion of my Professional Ruby Series.

Before going any further, I have to address something that some of my friends have given me flack for, both privately and on twitter: the name of the conference sounds snotty.

Voices that matter? SRSLY? Does that mean people not speaking at the conference don't matter? (Actually, that name is used for more than just this Ruby conference.)

My publisher might kill me for this, but I have to admit that I had reservations about the name at first also. It might not always come across online, but in person I'm actually a pretty humble guy about my accomplishments and outlook. SRSLY! So plainly put, it was only once we started getting our speakers lined up that I was able to put my concerns aside and start getting enthusiastic about the conference and what we're going to accomplish with it. I hope you will also, which is a big part of why I'm writing this now.

First of all, I have to tell you about the format of the conference, which I take responsibility for defining. Normally, the AW conferences are multi-track, with 45 to 60 minute talks. I said: "No way. That sounds awful!".

RubyFringe, originally uploaded by Leftist.

RubyFringe sealed the deal for me on one-track conferences. Technical conferences should be kept small in attendance, have just a single-track, and short talks. Short talks are especially important, since all topics are not equally interesting to everyone in attendance (or god forbid I fuck up and invite a boring speaker) as long as talks don't go beyond 30 minutes then we're safe from completely going off the rails.

In fact, we're following as much of the advice given by Pete Forde in this blog post as possible, starting with the following:

• 30 minute talks are superior, and questions should be discouraged
• 150 attendees, 20 speakers, and 30 volunteers is the perfect intersection between big and small
• you do not need sponsors!
• you should charge real money for your event, your attendees will thank you because it will be worth going to
• make sure women play a leading role in organization and speaking
• single track is totally the way to go, because it keeps people together and allows an ongoing narrative

Women are definitely playing a leading role in organizing the conference. The inimitable Barbara Gavin is the conference organizer. She's got a huge spirit and is very experienced with this stuff. Debra Williams, my editor and familiar face at Ruby conferences, has a prominent role in hosting the conference too.

I hope you join me in Boston for what promises to be an exciting conference. The registration information is here and in the following installments of this little blog post series I'll start covering some of the exciting speakers and topics that we have lined up for you.

Comments

[Dan Croak]

You're 100% correct about single-track, 30 minute talks are superior, and questions should be discouraged.

There's also one major attraction to the Professional Ruby Conference that you didn't mention: Boston.

The conference is at a killer location at the Sheraton downtown. It's right in the center of action, is close to a ton of great stuff in a great city. Boston's extremely walkable, and the subway is cheap ($1.25 a ride). Even cabs aren't bad because the city is so compact.

I'll be there and willing to play hometown host to any visitors looking to experience the city. Looking forward to this conference a lot.

[bryanl]

I'm gonna take you up on the offer Dan.

[Mike Moore]

Hmmm, the name of your conference kinda makes me want to rename MountainWest RubyConf to Hacker's RubyConf. :)

Good luck with the conference, I wish I could attend!

[Zed A. Shaw]

Man, I miss that hat.

[Barbara Gavin]

Actually, when we came up with the name - the deal was that the voices we thougth mattered were those of the participants.
You know, I even try to not refer to the folks who come to our conferences as "attendees" - nope, they are participants.

[Bob Aman]

"the name of the conference sounds snotty."

Yes. Yes, it does. When I first heard about it, my gut reaction was, "Who would sign up to speak at an event with a name like that?" Then I saw you were chairing the event, and became even more confused.

"It might not always come across online, but in person I'm actually a pretty humble guy about my accomplishments and outlook."

And this is the reason for my confusion. I know you're a humble guy, and I'm a little surprised you didn't give them a bit more push-back on the name. Seriously, the name still sucks, clarifications notwithstanding.

That said, you're absolutely right about single-track. RubyFringe was brilliant, and I wish more conferences pared things down a bit and eschewed the multi-track format. So kudos for that at least.

[Bob Aman]

Haha, Zed. It is an awesome hat.

[Obie Fernandez]

@Bob: Man, I know what you're saying and believe me I *did* give as much pushback as I felt I could give. I'm sure this kind of community feedback helps though!

@Dan: I think I'm gonna quote your comment in my next post about the conference. The location is definitely a big plus!

[Bob Aman]

Well, I'm glad you recognized the problem.

Consider Rubyfringe. That conference was organized by people who knew their audience, and knew them well. The name reflected that. "Voices That Matter"? That name could only have been produced by someone outside the Ruby community, likely someone who doesn't write code, and it would be a rare Rubyist who won't immediately recognize that. I can't see how that would ever be a positive. In the end, it may not matter much, but consider how awesome Rubyfringe ended up. That awesomeness certainly wasn't the result of ignoring the mindset of the attendees.

[David A. Black]

Hi Obie --

Good luck on your first foray into conference organizing. It's a
difficult but, for me at least, very rewarding pursuit.

I would definitely change the name of this event next time around.
It's unambiguously arrogant-sounding, and the fact that it requires
explanation and contextualization to blunt the impact is a sign that
it's a terrible name. If you get a chance to "push back" some more,
you can definitely add my name to the list of people who find it
pompous and self-important.

I've always strongly believed that everyone should have the
experience, preferably more than one, of going to a one-track
conference. With RubyConf shape-shifting, it's good to see that the
Ruby conference landscape contains numerous one-track events. In fact,
our decision to shape-shift is closely related to the fact that the
one-track experience is now available from so many other Ruby
conferences. (For more thoughts on what's gone into our 2008 planning,
see: http://dablog.rubypal.com/2008/9/13/tracks-a-go-go-at-rubyconf-2008 )

I've read both your and Pete Forde's thoughts on conference planning
with interest. In the wake of reading them, however, I'm left a little
concerned about what seems to be the advocacy for adopting, up front,
a set of universal guidelines and metrics for conference planning. The
problem is that different events really are different. Things like
attendance size, program structure, talk length, whether or not to
have sponsors, whether speakers should allow questions, and so
forth--none of these things has a unique, correct value that never
changes, or that should never change.

Moreover, that's what makes different events different and keeps the
conference landscape rich and interesting. I've been fortunate enough
to be directly involved in organizing conferences ranging from 33 to
1600 people, from one day to three days, single-track and multi-track,
in the US and abroad... and they've all presented different
permutations of challenges. That's all to the good, since if exactly
the same solutions applied to exactly the same problems every time,
things would get very repetitive and boring, both for the organizers
and for the attendees.

So if you stay in the event-organizing biz, stay adaptable, and you'll
stay agile :-)

Have fun, and good luck!

David