One of the biggest mysteries in the conference world surrounds the selection of abstracts. You spend hours coming up what you think is an interesting topic, coax some of your more intelligent professional colleagues to add their name to your proposal, write up a few sentences describing your proposed session, and then “Poof!” Off into the selection vortex.
“Where does my submission go? Who exactly is reviewing it? Are they going to notice that I misspelled ‘CME’?”
For weeks, you wait, never quite sure when you are going to hear whether your proposal was accepted, with no idea what reviewers are saying about it. All you get is the eventual, “Congratulations!” or “So sorry!” email, usually at 4:59 p.m. on the Friday you are leaving for a week’s vacation.
One of the nice things about the public voting for CMEpalooza is the mystery is only somewhat limited (we considered letting people see the running vote totals for each session but decided against it for several reasons), and we’re not going to be spending weeks sitting on the results. Once the polls closed on Monday afternoon, Derek and I went down the list, starting with the top vote getter and working from there, until we filled the CMEpalooza Spring allotted time slots.
This morning (Tuesday), we’ll begin contacting all of the winning and almost winning presenters (there are no losers in CMEpalooza), and begin to put the official time schedule together. From there, it’ll take a few days to figure out everyone’s availability and to cement each session into the agenda. Hopefully, we’ll have it available in a week.
A few interesting facts to keep everyone titillated while you wait:
- There were a total of 802 votes cast (you could vote for up to 5 sessions), which means that approximately 160-175 people participated in the selection process. Awesome. And thank you.
- There will be seven 1-hour sessions and two 30-minute sessions.
- There will be a few sessions with a single presenter, though the majority will include multiple panelists.
- Not a single person will be appearing more than once. This could change if faculty are added/dropped to specific sessions or as our Gold Sponsor sessions are formalized, but for right now, you’ll see different faces in every session. Kind of fascinating considering there were quite a few people whose names were included in multiple abstracts. Just a quirk of the voting process, but great to promote diversity in our event.