We thought we’d share a little a bit about the thought process of how we chose the rants that we did/ didn’t choose others. Basically, for the main rant slots, we wanted to make sure that the topics were rants that would facilitate discussion, and create a participation opportunity for the audience. You may recall that the rant format is 15 minutes for rant followed by 15 minutes for discussion. Some submissions leant themselves more to this format than others.
This meant that some talks which would have been enlightening and entertaining as rants by themselves, but were either truisms and thus didn’t have a counterpoint, or didn’t have a counterpoint that was fundamentally offensive to people, we couldn’t include them. Thus, In general we haven’t included topics that relate to things like sexism/ageism/ableism out of an acknowledgement that this is the lived experience of people and we don’t want to create a situation where we’re asking people to disagree with others’ lived experience. There are some topics that relate to really interesting tech cultural topics such as contempt culture and imposter syndrome, and in those cases the submissions were online using the form and they went into detail about the counterpoints. We ended up with this program. We’re really interested to hear these rants and facilitate discussion after, and we hope you’ll enjoy them.
However, we have also included time at the end for LIGHTNING RANTS. If you submitted a topic that didn’t make it through to the main rants, it’s possible that it may be a really good fit for the lightning rants session. This will be basically short monologues, and so an entertaining and education rant (that is uncontroversial because it’s lived experience) would work really well for that format.