Your Courage, Grace and Integrity comes forth in this post. I salute and applaud you for your words.

Insomuch as this is about you, it is also about the FGS. They need to publicly step up their game and provide transparency.

The FGS must tell you/us why your topics were REJECTED. Your list includes some of the most important and relevant subjects on the minds of genealogists today. Everybody knows that you can deliver the goods.

I take issue with the revisionist term “non-invitees”. James Howard Meredith wasn’t “non-admitted” to the to the University of Mississippi. Rosa Parks wasn’t an issue of “non-seating” on that bus in Alabama. My point here – and this is me talking, not Thomas – is that we mustn’t sugar-coat or soft-pedal around a situation so blatant and disingenuous as this “rejection”.

There’s some pain going around in the genealogy lecture/presentation/workshop circuit. Some gifted and talented folks are being rejected, excluded, marginalized, and so on.

Thomas MacEntee will not go hungry from this rejection. Nor will he lose any respect or standing in the genealogy community. Simply, we must use this event as a lesson in looking out for our genealogy peeps and be vigilant for any transgressions that may come to past.

Peace & Blessings,
“Guided by the Ancestors”

Thanks as always Thomas for your willingness to address the good, bad and the ugly head on with grace.

Thoughts anyone, on a speaker feedback systems for conference organizers in the vein of “Rate Your Professor”? I, for one, was sorely disappointed in a couple of FGS2012 speakers. I would have loved to attend Thomas’ coverage of the same topic for a comparison.

I’m only a spectator in the genealogical conference system, but I do have a lot of experience in the academic “system,” where similar decisions are made, and I’ve seen many decisions turn on strange or eccentric causes, one vote more or less. It gets a bit wild in those meetings. You might enjoy reading the novel “Straight Man” by Richard Russo, a hilarious story of a department head at a university.

The benefits of this approach are that it offers an alternative during each time slot for those who cannot find a session that interests them. And it allows an open sharing of information from every attendee. The format is also much more engaging and promotes networking and increases learning.

I am not sure if any of the genealogy conferences have taken advantage of an unconference tract, but I see it beginning to be implemented at other types of conferences. (The association I belong to for my profession also hosts unconferences as stand-alone events.) If FGS allowed this type of tract at their conference you would probably have the chance to share some of the info you had planned on sharing and even better, instead of just speaking, you would become part of an engaged and active learning session related to your topic where the other participants add their knowledge and experience to the discussion.

It sounds like this is one model for conference scheduling; another being that used by SCGS where a schedule of dates for proposals due, notifications set, contracts due, etc. is part of the Call for Papers Notice.

From my somewhat limited speaking experience, I admit that it is very difficult to plan in advance knowing my conference proposals are “out there” and having no idea when, or if, any kind of notification will be sent out. In submitting a proposal, I feel a certain obligation to honor my request to speak, to be available on the conference dates, and to be able to travel (barring an emergency). If I found I was unable to speak, I would withdraw my proposal from consideration. I appreciate conference committees that take time to share their proposal process, to acknowledge receipt of my proposal and to notify me of their decision in a timely manner. It builds anticipation of an organized and courteous conference team and a successful conference experience.