I feel like EAGs applications are by default relatively short (≤ 2 hours), and as a general principle it seems good that CEA is actually asking for more information when needed (I didn’t even know they did this).
As for whether the second request might be unreasonable, it seems like we don’t have enough context on the project, your application, or the specific CEA email to make any strong judgements on this.
I’m not going to waste my time and theirs on endless rounds of edits, and given that the application process is probably the simplest part of organizing a conference, this leads me to expect a poorly put together event even if they were willing to admit me with my current answers.
What I’m surprised about is that at this point it doesn’t seem like you’ve had “endless rounds of edits”, but rather just two email exchanges. This feels uncharitable. Perhaps someone in the organizing team screwed up, so my natural response would be to ask for clarification if I felt the request was vague or unexpected?
I understand applications to EAGs can be burdensome and frustrating, but this also applies to the team reviewing them. Applications are not “the simplest part of organizing a conference”. They’re challenging to get right, especially at scale.
Update: While I still think my general opinion was right, I have heard examples from other people getting asked extra information with vague emails as well. For me this suggests that there are issues worth fixing with the process.
I asked for clarification the first time around, in addition to providing copious information about my involvement. There is no further information to provide. At this point they should admit or reject, not ask for further edits. Yes, I am sure it’s burdensome for the reviewing team if they are creating extra work for themselves by not just making a decision, but that’s a burden created by their poor work process, not by the task itself.
I feel like EAGs applications are by default relatively short (≤ 2 hours), and as a general principle it seems good that CEA is actually asking for more information when needed (I didn’t even know they did this).
As for whether the second request might be unreasonable, it seems like we don’t have enough context on the project, your application, or the specific CEA email to make any strong judgements on this.
What I’m surprised about is that at this point it doesn’t seem like you’ve had “endless rounds of edits”, but rather just two email exchanges. This feels uncharitable. Perhaps someone in the organizing team screwed up, so my natural response would be to ask for clarification if I felt the request was vague or unexpected?
I understand applications to EAGs can be burdensome and frustrating, but this also applies to the team reviewing them. Applications are not “the simplest part of organizing a conference”. They’re challenging to get right, especially at scale.
Update: While I still think my general opinion was right, I have heard examples from other people getting asked extra information with vague emails as well. For me this suggests that there are issues worth fixing with the process.
I asked for clarification the first time around, in addition to providing copious information about my involvement. There is no further information to provide. At this point they should admit or reject, not ask for further edits. Yes, I am sure it’s burdensome for the reviewing team if they are creating extra work for themselves by not just making a decision, but that’s a burden created by their poor work process, not by the task itself.