Anyone can hold one, they are open to any to attend, and most have an unconference structure – whether that means speakers sign up the day before, or the submission and admission process is completely transparent (last BIL we had online voting to choose the talks that made it in the main room).

If there’s anything I can do to help get BIL Vancouver going, let me know.

Re: “if we’re going to play that game, there will ALWAYS be someone left off the panel who probably could’ve/should’ve been there”.

TED is supposed to be about advancing new ideas, which makes old-fashioned gender disparity in the speaker lineup especially ironic. Providing some semblance of gender representation in a general interest, non-technical conference isn’t that hard to do, so it makes sense to do it. I don’t see how anyone can fail to understand why it’s a problem to have less than 10% of speakers in a general interest, non-technical conference be women.

My guess is that the application form, which TEDxVAN apparently had to use as a condition of taking on the brand, likely deterred a lot of would-be submitters of both sexes and the organizers were forced to draw from a limited submission pool. When collecting talk submissions it makes sense to make the submission process as easy as possible so there are lots to choose from. Were this year 10 of TEDxVAN the heavy handed submission process might have been necessary, but, despite the use of the TED brand, TEDxVAN is a new conference. The lengthy application forms (even for attendees: two references needed to attend?!) seem a great way to filter out those who value their time.

Seriously, why does everything in Vancouver have to be surrounded with controversy and protest?

1. I fail to see what is elitist about having an application process for a popular and FREE event. I guess we could just let people line up on a first come, first serve basis. But I’m sure we’d hear complaints about the waiting time!

2. From what I can see, nobody has any complaints about the quality or merit of the chosen speakers. They all deserve to be there, right?

Then can we not assume that we are seeing the best of the best? If not, then the criticism should be about the quality of the chosen speakers and the subject matter they present, not their gender. Geeez, talk about irony!

3. TED talks are about diversity in subject matter, not speakers. I’m not suggesting that the line-up of speakers should offer zero diversity. But why not reserve judgment and criticism until — hmm, I don’t know — actually HEARING one of the talks? If every single talk is generic and unoriginal, then, yes, we all have a right to complain.

Again, though, try and judge by the quality of the subject matter, not some predetermined bias or personal expectation.

Sure, we can all probably think of more women that could have been on the panel. But if we’re going to play that game, there will ALWAYS be someone left off the panel who probably could’ve/should’ve been there – regardless of race or gender.