a thought for speakers

[Leonard Len H. Tower Jr.]

In article <1991May29.150709.15363 at dg-rtp.dg.com> eliot at dg-rtp.dg.com writes:
|In article <3492 at muffin.cme.nist.gov>, libes at cme.nist.gov (Don Libes) writes:
||> In article <1991May28.183003.18759 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
||> Here's a related peeve:
||> The audience is responsible for homework, too.
||> 
||> ...
||> I had carefully timed everything, but with time so limited (we had 15
||> minutes to speak), the audience must do their part as well.  Read the
||> papers beforehand of any talks at which you think you might ask
||> questions.  (This statement really belongs in the conference program.)
|
|Here's a halfway measure that might help:  when it comes to Q&A time, announce
|that you are giving priority to those who have read the paper, and invite
|them to step raise their hands first (or step to the head of their line at
|the microphone, or whatever).

It's less then halfway.  There are many people, who can ask
intelligent probing questions without having read your paper, who I
wish could be given priority instead of those who have spent last
night dweebing over the paper.  For example: Chris Torek, Mike O'Dell,
Ed Gould, Deborah Scherrer, Evi Nemeth, Keith Bostic, Kirk McKusick,
Mike Karels, Rick Adams, Barry Shein, Doug Gwyn, Rob Pike, Dennis
Ritchie, Andrew Hume, Sharon Murrel, Tom Duff, Eric Allman, Dan Geer,
Rob Kolstad, Doug Gwyn, John Gilmore, and quite a few others.

Simple filters don't work. 

A spotlight on each question mike, allowing the presenter (and
audience) to see the queue and select people, could raise the average
level of question.  Some would cry unfair, as it would tend to give
precedence to known wizards.

thanx -len

(Apologies for mis-spellings and ommissions.  Haven't had my first
Coca Cola of the day ;-).