Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!ukma!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: a thought for speakers
Message-ID: <16312@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 31 May 91 18:36:23 GMT
References: <3492@muffin.cme.nist.gov> <1991May29.150709.15363@dg-rtp.dg.com> <82848@bu.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 28

In article <82848@bu.edu> tower@buitc.bu.edu (Leonard (Len) H. Tower Jr.) writes:
>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.

Gee, I guess I should feel honored to be the only one who gets to
ask TWO questions!

>Simple filters don't work. 

Seriously, though,

>Some would cry unfair, as it would tend to give
>precedence to known wizards.

Wizards tend to communicate with each other anyway, and don't need
to wait for the spotlight at a USENIX Conference.

I think the problem is that (a) asking questions of a speaker is not
a very efficient form of education and (b) too many people use the
opportunity merely to grind their personal axes.

It doesn't seem worth worrying much about.