Share Your Knowledge with 300+ Developers

Anonymous first stage

We have 10+ reviewers from different companies, backgrounds, and specialties. The first stage of review is anonymous — reviewers evaluate your proposal based primarily on the title and abstract, similar to how attendees scan a conference schedule.

When attendees browse a schedule, they usually see only the title and the first lines of the abstract. We mirror that experience in early review rounds to reduce bias and focus on the strength of the session itself.

Where to place links and materials

You're welcome to share links to slides, recordings, or additional context that supports your proposal. To preserve the anonymous review stage, we recommend avoiding links or identifying material directly in the abstract.

Instead, place supporting links in the “Notes for Reviewers” section of the CFP form. Those materials are typically reviewed in later stages when we consider the full picture.

How we score proposals

We score proposals on a 1–4 scale (not 1–5). The four-point scale encourages reviewers to lean in a direction rather than defaulting to a neutral middle score. We evaluate clarity, technical depth, originality, and relevance.

Reviewers are encouraged to leave notes alongside their scores. We aim to share feedback with speakers where possible, though we can't guarantee it for every submission.

Across the committee, we aim to spend meaningful time on each proposal — often adding up to roughly an hour of total reviewer time per session across reviewers. This is an intention we hold ourselves to, not a promise we can always keep.