As for changing how things are, I actually think that at CAL, things are very close to the Modest Proposal guidelines–in some ways better, since presenters can present but not register if they really want to.

I also think that there is a lot of inertia here, mostly because most state association members like things just fine they way that they are. They don’t view themselves as speakers in the same way that many library bloggers do.

But, as Walt says, transparency would help test that assumption of mine, and ensure that the associations’ policies are in line with what the membership wants.

Lastly, I will go on record saying that I think Dorothea is Evil in the best way, and that Swift doesn’t mention fritters, but does suggest one-year-olds “stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.”

1. Opacity — that is, until Rachel and others (me included) started changing things, most of us had no idea what the terms could/should be. That’s changing.

2. Appropriateness — and that’s maybe the big ongoing conundrum.

Where will this second round of discussions lead? Toward another level of transparency (for those who choose to pay attention): Of that much I’m sure. I’ll help. Changes? Well, transparency tends to beget change.

I liked Dan’s post too; I certainly have more questions to ask conference organizers than I used to. The only substantive problem I had with what he said is that it assumes two things: one, that everybody knows how the system works — when Rachel’s work demonstrates that’s not true — and two, that the system we have is the optimal system, and we should therefore neither investigate it nor seek to use what power we have as suppliers of speaking labor to change it.

I don’t believe that last one; I think there are better ways to cut up the pie (such pie as there is), and I also think that even folks as low on the totem pole as I can make a difference. Dan and Roy Tennant are on record as thinking that what is is okay.