Jeff On Games

I got confirmation today that my proposed talk(s) for GDC have been passed on this year. In this case, I was hoping to get a roundtable on build process into the mix, and I find it really unfortunate that they passed on it. Generally, the "Technical Issues in Tools Development" roundtable (that John does an excellent job moderating every year) spends half of its time talking about build process best practices, which means neither build process nor technical issues in tools development actually get the time they deserve. I talked to John about this, and he believed it was a good idea to get both roundtables more focused. That said, he was pretty certain I didn't have chance of getting it accepted (and honestly, I was pretty sure he was right).

What I find most disappointing is why such a round table was rejected. These are the criteria sited by the selection committee:

• Your expertise in the subject matter proposed. They have no way of knowing my experience with build systems, as they only ask what positions I've held at various game companies. They know I was an Associate Programmer at Bethesda and Lead Architect at Orbus. That doesn't show them that I designed (or helped design) the build systems at both companies, so in reality, this wasn't and couldn't have been a reason for rejection.
• The number of years you've been in the industry. Going on 4 years now. I guess seems longer than it is. Really though, does this affect my ability to lead a discussion on build process?
• Game credits and/or projects you've worked on. Sure, the build system for Aleph Metrics isn't amazing (doesn't have to deal with assets), but I ran in to any number of problems optimizing the assets for Obivion and Fallout 3 (though, to be honest, I'm not sure how much of my asset optimization code is still in Fallout 3). Again, though, there's no way for them to know what I actually did at Bethesda (they didn't ask) so really they're just looking for name recognition of projects. Would think those two would be pretty high up there.
• Past speaking history; if previously spoken at GDC your evaluation scores are taken into account very seriously. I spoke at GDC once, sort-of. It was a student action roundtable, which kinda died before it got off the ground. That's fine. Whatever. But since then I've spoken at any number of other schools and events, and I've never had a complaint, and quite a few compliments. I mean, I'd love to talk at GDC if they'd give me a chance.
• The relevancy of your session proposal to seasoned game developers, why is it interesting? How is it important to game development? What will game developers get out of the session? How can the selection committee think this wasn't important or interesting? Technical Issues in Tools Development is ALWAYS full and more than HALF of the time is dedicated to this and we NEVER come out with clear answers or any best practices because the time isn't actually there to talk about it. Would having an extra half hour help? I like to think so.
• How well you addressed any of the topics outlined in the submission guidelines. This, of course, could have been the key. Maybe I'm not so good at selling myself?

Every year, I just get more and more frustrated with submission process. There's little to no feedback as to why a talk was rejected and, while I can see it with some (any time I propose a game design talk, for example), some really good submissions, like this one seem to get thrown out without actual explanation. I think the only way I'll be okay with this rejection is if another, more experienced developer, proposed the same talk.

What about everyone else? Have people heard? Are you just as frustrated as I am?