TAM7+: Thoughts, feedback, suggestions...

[Ziggy66]

I think we should try to get Alton Brown (of Food Network's Good Eats and Iron Chef America fame) to speak. I don't know if he identifies as a skeptic, but he does demonstrate a lot of the science involved in cooking and he dispells a lot of food myths.

For what its worth, this is from his Wikipedia entry:

Brown is a born-again Christian and a member of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia.[12]

 

[grayman]

What about Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs?

 

[YoPopa]

Let's not invite anyone just because they are famous & popular. That is so antithetical to the purpose of JREF is it not? And let's try and encourage the big names who do attend to focus on the E and let their egos and personal anecdotes serve as support to the purpose and not an end unto themselves.

I'd like to see the thin ice of politics approached with the greatest of care and with a warning to those who so tread 'Bring evidence if you're going to talk politics, left, right or libertarian.'

 

[HistoryGal]

What about Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs?

Yes!!!111!

Mike Rowe. Alton Brown. Adam Savage.



HG

 

[shadron]

I'd like to see some charismatic female speakers too. Any ideas?

How about Susan Blackmore^WP? She started out as a doctorate in Parapsychology, but switched after ten years of work in that field and became a debunker. Listen to her TED talk on memes and temes here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html

And anyone who's picture in their own wiki article has more than three colors in their hair can't have a bad sense of humor.

 

[shadron]

Let's not invite anyone just because they are famous & popular. That is so antithetical to the purpose of JREF is it not? And let's try and encourage the big names who do attend to focus on the E and let their egos and personal anecdotes serve as support to the purpose and not an end unto themselves.

No, you don't want to invite anyone to speak simply because they are "famous & popular", but let's face it - people don't travel halfway around the world to a desert to hear you or me grace an hour of their time (or at least me; I suppose you could be someone f&p, but I'm certainly not).

 

[seismic_cowgirl]

Random thoughts...

Has anyone thought about incorporating workshops run by our own home grown talent who are not famous or have a book published? I was realizing as I was talking to people that we have a lot of talented people who could contribute so much to specific topics if they had a space to do it.

I also found that there are some groups of like-minded people who would love to have networking sessions after the talks and keep the momentum of ideas going while it's still all fresh.

I would suggest that we keep lectures to only half a day and then have various workshops on the second half of the day. This way we can still have the big ticket talks for everybody, but then we can divide up the crowd in the workshops to bring back the small group interaction that everybody seems to be concerned about losing as TAM gets bigger. We could also incorporate the paper presentations and a poster session into TAM instead of leaving them until the last day (which I missed ) and short-changes those presenters.

Working as a volunteer was a blast but I would suggest a few things that haven't been mentioned already... a meeting room just for us volunteers to get the latest news on where everybody is, what needs to get done and when, get the most current agenda and get up to speed to answer whatever questions the crowd may have etc, etc. Instead of having to track down Jeff or Scott or Alison for an answer, it's just easier to run to one location and get an answer.

MAPS!!!! We better get a floor plan for the next TAM and insert it into the registration packets. It makes is so much easier to direct people on where they need to go instead of "well if you just follow the hallway all the way to the end and go left and then down the escalators..."

I still have random thoughts floating around and still need to be organized but I'll just rather send those to jref@randi.org ... I still have to send in my evaluation

 

[Reed]

Has anyone thought about incorporating workshops run by our own home grown talent who are not famous or have a book published? I was realizing as I was talking to people that we have a lot of talented people who could contribute so much to specific topics if they had a space to do it.

I also found that there are some groups of like-minded people who would love to have networking sessions after the talks and keep the momentum of ideas going while it's still all fresh.

It'd be awesome if we could convince the conference organizers to set aside the evenings for Birds-of-a-feather (BOAF) talks as is done at many tech conferences. But that's not going to happen so long as the evenings are set aside for fundraising events. We'd need to pay for our own space, I gather, which is a damn shame -- all that talent and knowledge not being distributed through a hundred talks and presentations and workshops.

See my sig to see how we're growing such things on a regional basis which may eventually find their way to TAM.

 

[CFLarsen]

It'd be awesome if we could convince the conference organizers to set aside the evenings for Birds-of-a-feather (BOAF) talks as is done at many tech conferences. But that's not going to happen so long as the evenings are set aside for fundraising events. We'd need to pay for our own space, I gather, which is a damn shame -- all that talent and knowledge not being distributed through a hundred talks and presentations and workshops.

Has anyone thought about incorporating workshops run by our own home grown talent who are not famous or have a book published? I was realizing as I was talking to people that we have a lot of talented people who could contribute so much to specific topics if they had a space to do it.

I also found that there are some groups of like-minded people who would love to have networking sessions after the talks and keep the momentum of ideas going while it's still all fresh.

I would suggest that we keep lectures to only half a day and then have various workshops on the second half of the day. This way we can still have the big ticket talks for everybody, but then we can divide up the crowd in the workshops to bring back the small group interaction that everybody seems to be concerned about losing as TAM gets bigger. We could also incorporate the paper presentations and a poster session into TAM instead of leaving them until the last day (which I missed ) and short-changes those presenters.

There is nothing that prevents you from setting up your own workshop outside of JREF's schedule. I believe there was one this year about teaching. You will have to set up a venue on your own, of course, as well as get audio/visual, if needed.

The problem with separated workshops is where to put people. If you want separated workshops, you also need to work out where to put them: All of a sudden, you not only need a big hall for everyone, but several smaller ones (and some will invariably be overcrowded). That's an additional - and substantial - cost for JREF right there - in the event that it can be accommodated by the hotel at all. Also, consider moving people - this year, exemplified by the loooong walk to the dining areas. It is not a small logistical feat to move that many people a number of times. It also takes time to move people - and time, as you know, is very limited at TAM.

At Stardust, we were lucky enough to have an adjacent hall, where half of the papers could be presented. That did, however, lead to some criticism, because some wanted to see both. It isn't a nice thing to have to decide which presentation you want to see - especially since TAM only happens once a year.

Working as a volunteer was a blast but I would suggest a few things that haven't been mentioned already... a meeting room just for us volunteers to get the latest news on where everybody is, what needs to get done and when, get the most current agenda and get up to speed to answer whatever questions the crowd may have etc, etc. Instead of having to track down Jeff or Scott or Alison for an answer, it's just easier to run to one location and get an answer.

You can see where volunteers are and what needs to be done, on Scott's spreadsheet. The rest should be covered by Linda at either the registration or the cashiers table. But I agree that we should work to find a better way of locating certain key people.

MAPS!!!! We better get a floor plan for the next TAM and insert it into the registration packets. It makes is so much easier to direct people on where they need to go instead of "well if you just follow the hallway all the way to the end and go left and then down the escalators..."

Anything that goes into the folders will have to be carefully considered. Each sheet of paper adds to the workload of assembling the folders - not a small task as it is.

We could print out floor plans and leave them at the Forum table for people to pick up, and have a sign on the corkboard that says where to get one.

 

[Wolfman]

Personally, I think that TAM really needs to change its format. The large group sessions are good...but pretty much every major conference I have been to has a mixture of large group sessions (with one major topic), and smaller multiple group sessions (with several different topics).

While a lot of people liked TAM, the overwhelming consensus among people I talked with was that A) there were some sessions that did not personally interest them, and B) there were a lot of other topics they would have liked to have seen discussed.

My suggestion -- in the morning, have sessions much like we do currently. Have one or two major keynote speakers who give presentations. In the afternoon, offer a choice of three or four different topics at the same time, each one held in a different room. People can then choose which one they want to attend.

And skip the stuff about "it is too expensive" or "it is too difficult to organize". I've been to tons of conferences and conventions that use this format...in fact, TAM is about the only major conference I know of that doesn't do this. Sure, its a little more difficult...but the benefits for the participants are far far greater!!!

There are complaints that there are relatively few female participants. Well, after talking to some of the females who attended TAM, I found that a number of them were interested in different topics than those usually covered at TAM. Let's face it, TAM is pretty much a men's club. Almost all the speakers are men. The topics chosen are ones that, in general, are 'stereotypically male'. I'm not saying that no women will be interested (obviously, there are quite a few women who are), but there are other topics and issues that more women might find interesting.

For example:

* Cosmetics/diet/beauty woo -- How to pick out the wheat from the chaff when looking at the numerous products and programs on the market
* Infant education -- what programs are there that really benefit your kids? What 'popular fashions' in education have little or no benefit?

And before one of our local skepchicks pounces on me for being sexist, these were suggestions made to me by women at TAM

Now, personally, I wouldn't find either of those topics terribly interesting. But other people would. There's no way they would be used as main topics to be addressed to the entire audience...but for a smaller meeting, specifically for those who are interested in such topics, it would work great.

Or what about the ongoing discussion/complaints about the lack of programs and materials focused on teachers? Using this method, it would be easy to organize teacher-focused sessions.

Some people might complain that doing things this way means that "there are too many choices" and "I'll miss something important because I can't be everywhere at once". And that is true.

But I'd far, far rather be in a situation where there are too many interesting topics at once, and I must choose one of them...than to be in a situation where there is only one topic, and I either have no interest in that topic, or the speaker is deadly boring (and quite frankly, I faced both situations at TAM 6).

 

[YoPopa]

No, you don't want to invite anyone to speak simply because they are "famous & popular", but let's face it - people don't travel halfway around the world to a desert to hear you or me grace an hour of their time (or at least me; I suppose you could be someone f&p, but I'm certainly not).

Maybe I wasn't being clear. I was not suggesting that the presentations be by nobodys. I was reacting to the suggestion of Mike Rowe and this years' presentation by Adam Savage & one or two others. Mike Rowe may very well be knowledgeable but all I've ever seen him do is be funny while covered in carp. Adam Savage is famous for work that we all admire but how was this years' talk mission relevant? P&T have been thoroughly thrashed in another thread already.

Using major personalities in a gratuitous fashion is offensive to me personally because I come to skepticism through a New Age background with destructive cult experiences thrown in for bad measure. Anything that smacks of a cult of personality is off putting.

We had some great presentations this year by fantastic speakers that we can all admire highly. I'll be back as often as I can afford the expense. I only hope that organizers will choose speakers based first on their contribution to the core mission of JREF and that the speakers are told in advance to make the presentation specific to the mission.

 

[CFLarsen]

Personally, I think that TAM really needs to change its format. The large group sessions are good...but pretty much every major conference I have been to has a mixture of large group sessions (with one major topic), and smaller multiple group sessions (with several different topics).

While a lot of people liked TAM, the overwhelming consensus among people I talked with was that A) there were some sessions that did not personally interest them, and B) there were a lot of other topics they would have liked to have seen discussed.

You can't possibly have 900+ people agreeing on what they want to hear. Personally, there was not a single thing I heard from the presenters that I hadn't heard many times before.

That's just me, though, and I don't mind one bit. When we are dealing with a mix of newbies and old-timers, we cannot possibly have a schedule that satisfy everyone.

But then, I'm not there primarily for the speakers. I'm there for TAM. ****, that's one big kick!

My suggestion -- in the morning, have sessions much like we do currently. Have one or two major keynote speakers who give presentations. In the afternoon, offer a choice of three or four different topics at the same time, each one held in a different room. People can then choose which one they want to attend.

You need to present concrete solutions to how JREF will achieve this. E.g.:

• Can the hotel accomodate this?
• What is the cost to JREF?
• What about the logistics of moving such large crowds?

And so on and so forth.

And skip the stuff about "it is too expensive" or "it is too difficult to organize". I've been to tons of conferences and conventions that use this format...in fact, TAM is about the only major conference I know of that doesn't do this. Sure, its a little more difficult...but the benefits for the participants are far far greater!!!

No, you can't just dismiss the cost and the organizing. You have to realize that a lot of people attending TAM are on a very tight budget. They have had to dig up their grandma and sell her for medical experiments, in order to attend. And there is a limited supply of grandmas, you know.

Sure, lots of people are very generous, when it comes to sponsoring other attendees. Scholarships, dinners, outings, etc. If you are in need, just ask, and someone, somewhere, will step forward! I have never met a more generous crowd than this one - and I know that I am not the only one feeling this way.

But it doesn't negate the fact that not all can afford TAM, and that not all can accommodate all wishes.

There are complaints that there are relatively few female participants. Well, after talking to some of the females who attended TAM, I found that a number of them were interested in different topics than those usually covered at TAM. Let's face it, TAM is pretty much a men's club. Almost all the speakers are men. The topics chosen are ones that, in general, are 'stereotypically male'. I'm not saying that no women will be interested (obviously, there are quite a few women who are), but there are other topics and issues that more women might find interesting.

For example:

* Cosmetics/diet/beauty woo -- How to pick out the wheat from the chaff when looking at the numerous products and programs on the market
* Infant education -- what programs are there that really benefit your kids? What 'popular fashions' in education have little or no benefit?

And before one of our local skepchicks pounces on me for being sexist, these were suggestions made to me by women at TAM

Now, personally, I wouldn't find either of those topics terribly interesting. But other people would. There's no way they would be used as main topics to be addressed to the entire audience...but for a smaller meeting, specifically for those who are interested in such topics, it would work great.

I strongly disagree. If there is a subject that needs to be covered by someone at TAM, it will be covered. If you want cosmetics/diet/beauty woo to be discussed at TAM, suggest it! Do the legwork, find out if your selected speakers would be available for TAM. Present a package to JREF - just don't throw out an idea and expect JREF to do it for you.

In many ways, TAM is very much grass-root oriented. If you can get enough support, and present JREF with a tailor-made (and, preferably: cheap!) solution, it will happen. JREF is very open to suggestions.

I do not agree that we need to focus on women attending TAM anymore. We saw a lot of women, and not just as appendices to their husbands. They came on their own, and they were there for themselves. "Attract more women" should be stricken from the list of things to achieve. We've made that one - yay!

Or what about the ongoing discussion/complaints about the lack of programs and materials focused on teachers? Using this method, it would be easy to organize teacher-focused sessions.

Then, suggest concrete, viable, affordable solutions.

Some people might complain that doing things this way means that "there are too many choices" and "I'll miss something important because I can't be everywhere at once". And that is true.

But I'd far, far rather be in a situation where there are too many interesting topics at once, and I must choose one of them...than to be in a situation where there is only one topic, and I either have no interest in that topic, or the speaker is deadly boring (and quite frankly, I faced both situations at TAM 6).

If we had many days to cover all of the possibilities, sure. But TAM is - unfortunately - only a few days, very constricted, extremely condensed.

On Saturday afternoons, I always go into Zombie Mode. After less than a week's worth of intense TAM, I kinda zone out, due to information overload. Judging by what other TAM attendees say, I am not the only one.

TAM is one hell of an intense experience. Be sure that, when you suggest a new event, people can actually cope with it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe I wasn't being clear. I was not suggesting that the presentations be by nobodys. I was reacting to the suggestion of Mike Rowe and this years' presentation by Adam Savage & one or two others. Mike Rowe may very well be knowledgeable but all I've ever seen him do is be funny while covered in carp. Adam Savage is famous for work that we all admire but how was this years' talk mission relevant? P&T have been thoroughly thrashed in another thread already.

Using major personalities in a gratuitous fashion is offensive to me personally because I come to skepticism through a New Age background with destructive cult experiences thrown in for bad measure. Anything that smacks of a cult of personality is off putting.

We had some great presentations this year by fantastic speakers that we can all admire highly. I'll be back as often as I can afford the expense. I only hope that organizers will choose speakers based first on their contribution to the core mission of JREF and that the speakers are told in advance to make the presentation specific to the mission.

Then, who do you want to see at TAM, and why? Have you checked with them to see if they are available? Have you checked with them to see what they can offer? Do they want to come? Can they come?

Yeah: Be precise!

 

[Wolfman]

CF,

Forgive me...but your responses are just about as illogical and pointless as I can imagine. You emphasize how jam-packed everything is, how difficult it is to fit everything in to such a short time period...and then turn around and say that every one of my suggestions can be reasonably addressed/covered within the current format.

Sorry, dude, it don't work that way.

I'm quite aware of the fact that you do not speak for the JREF, and therefore have some difficulty understanding why you have apparently taken it upon yourself to decide what they can or cannot do. I'd like responses from the people who are actually in charge of making these decisions...and last I checked you were not one of those people.

In regards to cost, I would suspect that a huge amount of the cost for TAM comes from paying the fees for speakers such as Penn & Teller...quite frankly, we could get far BETTER speakers, at far LOWER cost...speakers who would actually address issues relevant to the conference.

I worked in 4 and 5 star hotels for 2 years. I've been responsible for helping to organize conferences. I've also attended numerous conferences in many different countries. The format I've suggested is VERY workable and practical.

Obviously, TAM gives extra options...you can pay the basic fee, and attend the basic activities; or you can pay extra, and get to attend extra sessions. The EXACT SAME FORMAT could be used for what I suggested; so those who have less money can pay the basic price, and attend regular sessions; while those who have more money can pay extra, and get more.

But there's one thing that you entirely NEGLECTED to mention in your rather pointless response...that yes, the cost is lower, but that as a result of the way the TAM program is set up, quite a few attendees end up WASTING THEIR TIME listening to speakers who A) are addressing a topic that is not of interest to them, B) have not bothered to prepare a damn thing, or C) are just plain bad speakers. What, is the goal of TAM to shoot for the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR?

Why don't you try taking a poll...give people two choices:

1) Have TAM be as cheap as possible, but give people no choices whatsoever about what topics they can listen to, and be able to cover only a tiny number of topics because of lack of time

or

2) Increase the cost of TAM (not hugely, but somewhat), but give people a much larger range of topics, as well as the freedom to choose specifically those topics that are of most interest/relevance to them

I'd personally wager a pretty penny that the majority of people would choose the second option. Hell...I'll even go and make such a poll when I finish this, to see what the actual results are.

My point? There's two things that I really hate in such discussions:

1) People who have no power to make any decisions at all acting as if they are key players and telling everyone else what can or cannot be done

2) People who are so stuck on the 'status quo' that they are unable to consider or comprehend any other ideas, and who'd rather stick with comfortable mediocrity than aspire to something greater

You've scored on both counts.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In regards to cost, I would suspect that a huge amount of the cost for TAM comes from paying the fees for speakers such as Penn & Teller...quite frankly, we could get far BETTER speakers, at far LOWER cost...speakers who would actually address issues relevant to the conference.

I'm enjoying your thoughts, and will continue to follow them, but this one sort of stood out. In the case of P&T, I think you can safely assume they are free. Not sure about the costs for others. I suspect the range from free all the way up to $X?

 

[YoPopa]

In the case of P&T, I think you can safely assume they are free.

Wow, is that true? Are they there just to do a good deed? If it is true then I am more impressed with them and it would make the criticism of P&T look more like biting the hand that feeds. Need more data.

 

[Terry]

In regards to cost, I would suspect that a huge amount of the cost for TAM comes from paying the fees for speakers such as Penn & Teller...quite frankly, we could get far BETTER speakers, at far LOWER cost...speakers who would actually address issues relevant to the conference.

Actually, my understanding is that the most substantial chunk of the cost is actually for the catering. Note that this is just what I heard, I'm not speaking (nor could I) for the JREF.

 

[Dunstan]

Then, who do you want to see at TAM, and why? Have you checked with them to see if they are available? Have you checked with them to see what they can offer? Do they want to come? Can they come?

Yeah: Be precise!

I realize that specific detailed suggestions are more helpful than general ones, but I think you're taking it a little too far.

Does the JREF really want a bunch of us forumites contacting potential speakers, inquiring about availability, fees, etc., when we have no authority to speak on behalf of the JREF? It strikes me as unlikely that many desirable speakers are going to respond in detail to folks who aren't acting in any official capacity. It also, in my opinion, would make TAM and the JREF look rather amateurish.

And the same argument applies to your responses to other suggestions about multiple sessions, etc. Should I call up the manager of the South Coast and inquire about getting extra conference rooms for TAM7? Should I start calling other facilities for TAM8 quotes?

Yes, it's annoying when people insist "the JREF should do X" and stamp their feet when it doesn't happen, without regard to the explanations given about the logistical, financial, or other difficulties. But that's not what I see happening in this thread. I see people making suggestions that the JREF can investigate if they haven't already, and you shooting them down as if they're "claims" lacking evidence instead of suggestions.

 

[phyz]

In the case of P&T, I think you can safely assume they are free.

They are friends of Randi and I'm sure they come to TAM for free. Penn makes his home available for a fundraiser, we get access to discounted tix to their show. P&T do a great show on debunking wooish things. It's even better if you watch it while Libertarian. They work skepticism into the fabric of their magic show. Clearly they are outstanding soldiers in the critical thinking army.

That said, P&T's time slot for the past three TAMs has been worth what was paid for it. Right now, they are an answer looking for a question. I hope we can give them a decent question for the next TAM. (And by question, I mean a topic for them to work with/tell a story about. Please somebody make the P&T Q&A stop!)

 

[CFLarsen]

CF,

Forgive me...but your responses are just about as illogical and pointless as I can imagine. You emphasize how jam-packed everything is, how difficult it is to fit everything in to such a short time period...and then turn around and say that every one of my suggestions can be reasonably addressed/covered within the current format.

I don't. E.g., I specifically pointed out that you can't dismiss the cost.

Sorry, dude, it don't work that way.

I'm quite aware of the fact that you do not speak for the JREF, and therefore have some difficulty understanding why you have apparently taken it upon yourself to decide what they can or cannot do.

I don't.

I'd like responses from the people who are actually in charge of making these decisions...and last I checked you were not one of those people.

Then, don't ask your questions here, on the forum. You know that neither Linda or Randi reads the forum regularly.

In regards to cost, I would suspect that a huge amount of the cost for TAM comes from paying the fees for speakers such as Penn & Teller...quite frankly, we could get far BETTER speakers, at far LOWER cost...speakers who would actually address issues relevant to the conference.

Then, find those speakers, find out what they cost, find out if they are willing, and present that to JREF.

I worked in 4 and 5 star hotels for 2 years. I've been responsible for helping to organize conferences. I've also attended numerous conferences in many different countries. The format I've suggested is VERY workable and practical.

Then, present that to JREF.

Obviously, TAM gives extra options...you can pay the basic fee, and attend the basic activities; or you can pay extra, and get to attend extra sessions. The EXACT SAME FORMAT could be used for what I suggested; so those who have less money can pay the basic price, and attend regular sessions; while those who have more money can pay extra, and get more.

TAM is already doing that, with the workshops. What additional events would you have optional, and for what price?

But there's one thing that you entirely NEGLECTED to mention in your rather pointless response...that yes, the cost is lower, but that as a result of the way the TAM program is set up, quite a few attendees end up WASTING THEIR TIME listening to speakers who A) are addressing a topic that is not of interest to them, B) have not bothered to prepare a damn thing, or C) are just plain bad speakers. What, is the goal of TAM to shoot for the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR?

Again, it is impossible to satisfy everyone, or hit the exact level where everyone are. At TAM6, I met quite a number of newbies who had not been skeptics for very long. If you are only getting used to concepts like Occam's Razor, logical fallacies and the types of paranormal claims that we are used to, you certainly want to be sure you understand what it is all about.

And I don't agree that TAM is for the lowest common denominator. We have had some pretty advanced lectures at TAM that were not for newbie skeptics. Again, not for everyone.

Why don't you try taking a poll...give people two choices:

1) Have TAM be as cheap as possible, but give people no choices whatsoever about what topics they can listen to, and be able to cover only a tiny number of topics because of lack of time

A tiny number of topics? You cannot be serious! This TAM had by far the most busy schedule of all TAMs.

or

2) Increase the cost of TAM (not hugely, but somewhat), but give people a much larger range of topics, as well as the freedom to choose specifically those topics that are of most interest/relevance to them

Again, how specifically will you do that? TAM is only a few days, and not everyone can take time off to go for much longer. Each day you add will also add cost for attendees, the hotel not being a small expenditure.

The reason why we have scholarships is because quite a number of people are scraping by. Every time you increase the cost of TAM, you exclude a lot of people. Poor people. Do you really want a TAM for those in the higher income bracket?

I'd personally wager a pretty penny that the majority of people would choose the second option. Hell...I'll even go and make such a poll when I finish this, to see what the actual results are.

Make the poll, then.

My point? There's two things that I really hate in such discussions:

1) People who have no power to make any decisions at all acting as if they are key players and telling everyone else what can or cannot be done

Who has done that? This is the forum, people can make suggestions and give their opinions on things.

2) People who are so stuck on the 'status quo' that they are unable to consider or comprehend any other ideas, and who'd rather stick with comfortable mediocrity than aspire to something greater

TAM has developed tremendously since its humble beginnings. I don't know how many TAMs you have been to, but I have been to them all. TAM has come a long way since the first TAM.

You've scored on both counts.

Nonsense.

I realize that specific detailed suggestions are more helpful than general ones, but I think you're taking it a little too far.

Does the JREF really want a bunch of us forumites contacting potential speakers, inquiring about availability, fees, etc., when we have no authority to speak on behalf of the JREF? It strikes me as unlikely that many desirable speakers are going to respond in detail to folks who aren't acting in any official capacity. It also, in my opinion, would make TAM and the JREF look rather amateurish.

No, I am not saying that people should speak on behalf of JREF. I am saying that if people want to see someone at TAM, there is no harm in contacting them first, to see if they are interested at all. Gather as many people as you can, and send a petition to X, if you want to see X at TAM.

And the same argument applies to your responses to other suggestions about multiple sessions, etc. Should I call up the manager of the South Coast and inquire about getting extra conference rooms for TAM7? Should I start calling other facilities for TAM8 quotes?

If you want something extra at TAM, don't expect JREF to do all the legwork. It takes a looong time for Karl and Linda to investigate which hotels can accommodate us, and do the negotiations. Do you want them to jump from hotel to hotel, just because you have heard that Hotel X is really good for this?

Yes, it's annoying when people insist "the JREF should do X" and stamp their feet when it doesn't happen, without regard to the explanations given about the logistical, financial, or other difficulties. But that's not what I see happening in this thread. I see people making suggestions that the JREF can investigate if they haven't already, and you shooting them down as if they're "claims" lacking evidence instead of suggestions.

Nonsense.