We simply have a specific bar for admissions and everyone above that bar gets admitted (though previous comms have unfortunately mentioned or implied capacity limits).This is why the events have been getting larger as the community grows.
So it seems that they do not explicitly compare applicants with each other when making admissions decisions. [1]
Which, unrelatedly, is very confusing. My EAG SF 2020 rejection email said
Due to the large number of applicants, many dedicated community members doing valuable work may not be accepted to EAG this year.
The email also linked to this EA Forum post from December 2019, which says
We think an application process is the best way to allocate the limited spaces to the people who can best use them.
and
Why not make it larger?
The largest EA Global was about 1000 people in 2016, and we got feedback that it was too big and that it was easy to get lost in the shuffle. Our recent events have been between 500 − 650 people including speakers, volunteers, and staff.
Venues above that size tend to be significantly more expensive, or less suited to the event. We already subsidize tickets and provide financial aid to keep prices reasonable, so more attendees cost CEA more
I’m not sure if Eli Nathan’s comment is implying that these statements I quoted were false at the time they were made, or if the CEA has changed its mind since EAG SF 2020 about whether to limit the number of attendees or not.
… okay, so I just read a few more of Eli Nathan’s comments and I am now really confused. For instance, he’s said the following (emphasis mine)
In setting the bar, desired conference size is not really a factor in our decision making, though perhaps it should be (and it possibly will be if the events get much larger) — we mostly just think about what type of applicants would be a good fit for the event. We seem to receive more feedback about the types of attendees that come (or don’t come) rather than feedback about the raw size of the conference, and so we mostly action on the former. If we started receiving lots of “this conference felt too big” feedback, then yes we would possibly action on that, but that hasn’t really happened yet and I don’t expect it to in the near future.
I think this part is wrong.
Eli Nathan has said the following:
So it seems that they do not explicitly compare applicants with each other when making admissions decisions. [1]
Which, unrelatedly, is very confusing. My EAG SF 2020 rejection email said
The email also linked to this EA Forum post from December 2019, which says
and
I’m not sure if Eli Nathan’s comment is implying that these statements I quoted were false at the time they were made, or if the CEA has changed its mind since EAG SF 2020 about whether to limit the number of attendees or not.
… okay, so I just read a few more of Eli Nathan’s comments and I am now really confused. For instance, he’s said the following (emphasis mine)
This appears to directly contradict the December 2019 EA Forum post I linked to.
Thanks!