Being a discussant isn't the sort of thing that gets people tenure, but it's definitely a thing that people appreciate people doing--the norm is that the conference requires presenters to submit their presentations ahead of time so that the discussant can read them in advance. I'm sure it breaks down at times, but that's the general model. I've done it--and for talks I didn't actually like!--and the idea is definitely that one is polite, and if one does have critiques, one also raises them respectfully and finds things to like in the work as well. My impression is that people definitely take it seriously; depending on who the discussant is, it can be a valuable opportunity to get feedback from some very noteworthy people.
At AAS I believe there's a split between submitting panels and submitting individual papers; they prefer that panels are submitted because it's less work for them. Some academic conferences only take panels and some only take papers.
The only actual tech conferences I've been to have been unconferences, which of course are totally different. But I do think that keeping everyone on the panel to the same time limit wouldn't hurt anyone.
no subject
Date: 3 Apr 2014 11:57 pm (UTC)At AAS I believe there's a split between submitting panels and submitting individual papers; they prefer that panels are submitted because it's less work for them. Some academic conferences only take panels and some only take papers.
The only actual tech conferences I've been to have been unconferences, which of course are totally different. But I do think that keeping everyone on the panel to the same time limit wouldn't hurt anyone.