[numakerg]

I'm reading through the Twitter thread, but I can't decipher the exact issue(s).

Did the organizers select a lower ratio of diverse speakers than applicants? Were there very few diverse applicants and the organizers decided none of them qualified?

[larkeith]

From the second and third links (both blog posts rather than Twitter), only 1 out of 250+ submissions was from a woman, so the latter. Presumably a similar situation occurred in 2018, as there was a single female speaker out of the 39-person lineup.

[numakerg]

>only 1 out of 250+ submissions was from a woman

Mark didn't cite a source for this, which is what I was looking for in the Twitter thread.

[larkeith]

Oh, that's a good point. It might be sourced from crell's post: "According to them, they had only a single woman submit a session proposal this year...", which was from conversations with the organizers, so potentially nonverifiable.

You could probably check Mark's other claim more easily: "...the line-up last year was almost all male as well, just one woman out of 39 speakers."

[sp332]

Twitter is never a great forum to discuss issues that need context. The two blog posts lay things out more clearly.

[numakerg]

I saw Mark's point about 1/250 but I couldn't locate the statement from the organizers. Larry says a number of speakers offered to swap their double sessions for more female speakers, but would those new speakers be the single applicant or other speakers who hadn't applied.

Regardless, the conference organizers are at least partially responsible for lack of diverse applicants if their speakers were able to find candidates on short notice.