Editorial workflow for Rootconf and Fifthel conferences

This document explains the flow of organizing conferences under Rootconf and Fifthel. The approach used here is to involve speakers from the previous editions, and members in the WhatsApp and Telegram groups, to take ownership of smaller pieces that help put the “conference” actvity together.

The roles involved in organizing conferences are:

Editors

• Lay down the theme of the conference and wishlist of topics. For SRE Conf, editors (Sarika Atri and Safeer CM) defined the tracks for the event (teams organization and stories from the trenches), and took ownership of one track each.
  For Fifthel winter edition, the two editors (Ashwin and Anuj) each detailed out the engineering and business tracks with granular topics.
  Using this approach, editors become responsible for laying out the tracks, and become individual track curators.
  In each case, one person takes the lead to set up the base document, which the other person refines. For example, Sarika started the base document which Safeer then went on to refine.
  Similarly, Anuj set up the topics for the business track, which Ashwin then took off from, and listed out the engineering track topics.
• Suggest and scout speakers: here, editors put down a list of speakers - both in their circles and on their wishlist - to bring to the conference. Where possible, editors should directly reach out to speakers, and recruit them to speak at the conference. This is because editors have the context to the conference topics, and where they see speakers fitting in. Where the editor doesn’t have direct connects, a scout from the Hasgeek team reaches out to the speakers, explains the context to them, and then introduces them to the editor. From here, the editor’s job is to recruit the speaker.
• Recruiting speakers: when editors or the Hasgeek scout approaches speakers, the (potential) speakers need a context - not only to the conference - but also what they can speak about and what of their experiences and learnings will be valuable for audiences. The editors provide inputs here, and work with the (potential) speakers to distill the topic. As editors recruit speakers, they need to refine the wishlist of topics and add more nuances.
  The topic list becomes well nuanced after editors have spoken to five-six speakers. Sharing this well nuanced topic list with the next set of speakers upfront reduces the overhead of recruiting speakers because speakers start to look at the topic list and identify for themselves where their experience and expertise is, and therefore, what of their knowledge and experiences they can comfortably speak about.
• Commenting on speaker abstracts and slides async, and giving a final approval on whether the talk is good to go. This is ideally done on the submissions on each conference’s page. Sometimes, this conversation takes place in Telegram or WhatsApp groups. Here, the speaker coordinator may have to do the job of posting the comments/feedback on the respective speaker’s submission.
• Filtering the list of reviewers and applicants for rehearsals, and matchmaking on who sits on which rehearsals - here, editors have to pick generalists who can comment on the speaker’s overall talk structure/storyline, and specialists, who will give comments on the details of the talk’s subject matter. For each rehearsal, editors must choose one generalist and two specialists, with one back-up for each roles.
• Preparing the schedule - the schedule is a story like flow for the event. In the case of two or more tracks, editors have to decide on which talks fit in which tracks and how the order or the queue of the topics/speakers will be.

Essentially then, the editors’ work is intellectual, and getting the topics and speaker queue organized, as well as match-making reviewers (generalists and specialists) to rehearsals to ensure that speakers get adequate feedback to prepare their talks.

Enabling editors - with sessions and formats

For editors to function effectively, a cap needs to be put down for the number and type of sessions for the conference. Here are some templates:

1. For a full day conference of five hours (plus 1.5 hours of breaks), the total number of sessions required in each track is six.
2. Of these six sesisons, a track editor can either put together four talks and two panels, or five talks and one panel.
3. Some talks are replaced with keynotes, if there is a need to do an opening or closing keynote.

Having this template in place also gives visibility to how many talks need to be scouted for, and the percentage combination between scouting talks, and discovering talks.

Similarly, formats have to be set for talks, and type of talks. This helps speakers to plan and bound the material they want to present. Rootconf and The Fifth Elephant have frequently used the following formats:

1. Full talks - where speaker speaks for 30 mins and answers questions for 5-10 mins. Total duration is 40 mins.
2. Crisp talks - where speaker speaks for 15-20 mins, answers questions for 5 mins. Total duration is 20-25 mins.
3. Speaker connect with joint Q&A - where three speakers come back after their talks and answer questions jointly. The purpose of this format is to help participants make connections across talks, and internalize insights across a range of experiences and topics.
4. Panel discussions - are typically 45 mins to 1 hour duration. A panel requires a strong theme, 3-4 leading questions, a strong moderator, and 3-4 panelists (including at least 50% women and persons of non-binary genders) to share experiences.
5. Birds of Feather (BOF) sessions - which are guided discussions, off-the-record, where participants join the discussion and share experiences freely. A BOF Is not a panel discussion. BOFs are held in open spaces around the conference venue, giving participants the option to walk in and walk out of the sessions freely.
6. Flash talks - are 5-min show-and-tell talks, where participants have the opportunity to share a problem they are working on, or something they have discovered in their work. Flash talks are gathered prior to the conference and on the spot. A session is left open, for 20-30 mins, to accommodate four to six flash talks.

Editors can pick these formats and set up the conference. Room is also left for participants and members to add some impromptu discussion in open spaces, and to (emotionally and intellectually) own parts of the conference experience.

Reviewers

Reviewers are part of the modular structure of putting together a conference, or an activity that goes on over a period of time.

A reviewer is a subject matter expert or a generalist. The reviewer’s key role is to help speakers to prepare either the narrative/story of their talk or to sharpen the technical nuances and insights in their talks.

Reviewers are selected from the following pools:

1. Speakers of previous editions of activities under the brand.
2. Members of the brand, who have an interest in understanding industry trends and providing feedback.
3. Individuals who the community organizer wants to involve more deeply, and prepare for taking up editorial in future.
4. People from editors’ networks and recommendations.

The reviewer’s role is three-fold, and takes place at the following stages:

1. To give feedback on submissions on the project page. This happens async, when the submission is made. Reviewers must therefore receive notifications when a submission is made. They should also be able to review which submissions they have commented on, and which they haven’t.
2. When the speaker submits their slides, reviewers have to be notified to review the slides.
3. Finally, editors pick and choose reviewers who will sit on (online) rehearsals with different speakers, and give the speakers live feedback.

The incentive for a reviewer to participate is three-fold:

1. To get industry insights by talking to speakers through the review process.
2. To build their personal brand in the community and the industry.
3. To graduate to the ladder of becoming an editor.

How are speakers introduced to reviewers?

Reviewers are listed prominently on the project page. They are also added to the crew for the project, so that their role is visible to anyone who wants to find out who is associated with the conference/activity.

Reviewers also hang out in the Rootconf/Fifthel Telegram/WhatsApp groups, where they are encouraged to talk to speakers, and give them feedback. In this way, reviewers are socialized in the community, and among speakers. It is good for speakers to know who the reviewers and editors are, so that speakers are incentivized to speak on the basis of review being their reward.

Reviewers (and editors) may hesitate to give honest/upfront feedback, if they do not feel safe or feel that the speaker is above their authority. It is very important that there is direct feedback exchanged between speakers, reviewers and editors. In the likely chance that a speaker is offended/upset by a reviewer or editor’s comments, the editor comes in to allay the situaton. If the conflict is not resolved, the editor and involved parties resolve the situation by placing the audience’s interests foremost, and take necessary action.

Editoral flow and review process

The following steps are involved:

1. Once the base document of topics is prepared (along with the wish list of speakers), create a project on hasgeek.com under the respective brand.
2. Start reaching out to speakers from the editors’ list by pointing the speakers to the topics. If a speaker expresses interest, connect them with the editor, either on email or WhatsApp/Telegram. The editor discusses the topic with the speaker, and asks them to submit an abstract on the submissions page. The speaker coordinator may have to follow-up here, since there is a high chance of the speaker dropping off when they are asked to write an abstract.
3. To make it easy for the speaker to submit their abstract, give the speaker four questions to answer:

• What was the context of the problem or the organization?
• What approach did the speaker pick to solve the situation? Why did they pick this approach? Did they compare this approach to any other available solutions?
• What was the outcome? What changed - for the better or the worse? Show before-and-after metrics.
• What did you learn from this process?

4. Once the speaker submits abstracts, reviewers come in to give feedback.
5. The editor(s) review(s) the abstract once and gives their feedback too.
6. The speaker is given 7 days to submit draft slides.
7. Meanwhile, editors pick which reviewers (generalists and specialists) will sit in the rehearsal.
8. A rehearsal is set-up between the speaker and reviewers, where the speaker walks through their talk structure in detail.
9. At the end of the rehearsal, the reviewers give their feedback. The speaker coordinator then checks with reviewers whether the talk is good to go for the conference/activity or not. The coordinator also shares this feedback with the editors.
10. The editors make a final call - yes or no - on the talk based on feedback and the slides.

Role of the speaker coordinator

• Step 1: Speaker submission and initial review
  Speaker Submits Content: The speaker submits their content (e.g., presentation slides) to the coordinator.
  Coordinator’s Initial Review: The coordinator reviews the submission for completeness and quality.

• Step 2: Editor engagement
  Coordinator Alerts Editor: If the submission is acceptable, the coordinator informs the editor to review the content. This can be done every Tuesday and Thursday where the coordinator collates links to the submissions that came in after the last review and shares with the editor.
  Editor Review: The editor reviews the submission, providing feedback or requesting revisions.

• Step 3: Content refinement
  Speaker Revision: The speaker revises their content based on the editor’s feedback.
  Revised Submission: The speaker submits the revised content to the coordinator. Deadline will be a week from when the speaker is notified.

• Step 4: Rehearsal coordination
  Rehearsal scheduling: The coordinator schedules rehearsal sessions with the speakers. Editors/reviewers to inform the speaker coordinator of slots when they are available. For Fifthel Monsoon, weekdays between 6-8pm were reserved for rehearsals and at least one of the editors were present for all.
  Speaker participation: Speakers participate in rehearsals to get an initial go or no-go for their presentations.

• Step 5: Final Content Review
  Coordinator alerts editor (again): After rehearsals, the coordinator informs the editor to review the final content and presentation.
  Final editor review: The editor reviews the content and presentation quality, providing any final feedback.

• Step 6: Content publication
  Coordinator gathers materials: The coordinator collects all necessary materials, including video release forms and speaker details.
  Publication: The content is prepared for publication, including adding it to the submission page and coordinating with the technical team for AV setup.

• Step 7: Speaker engagement and marketing
  Coordinator promotes content: The coordinator shares posters, guidelines, and updates with the speakers. To be done at least 10 days before the conference.
  Speaker engagement: The coordinator maintains communication with speakers, coordinates AV and technical requirements, and collects additional details for marketing.

• Step 8: Onsite event coordination
  Onsite Coordination: The coordinator is present onsite during the event to ensure smooth coordination with speakers.

• Step 9: Post-event activities
  Content updates: The coordinator ensures that any post-event content updates or additional materials are collected and published.