Who's good for which programming

One of the biggest questions about doing programming for Minicon, or any con, is figuring out who's good for what programming. This is not something I (Rachel) can distill into a clear document, however, because there are a lot of factors involved:

• Interests: Different people have different interests. You will frequently discover, as you do programming, that someone you thought was primarily a Star Wars geek is also a linguistics and quantum computation geek, or that someone you thought was just into fantasy also has a deep and abiding interest in the state of the International Space Station. It is impossible to get everyone to tell you all their interests right off the bat -- there simply isn't personal bandwidth to do this -- but hopefully, through the programming process, you'll discover more about everyone's interests.
• Conflicts: You'll find that certain people have longstanding feuds with certain other people, and that putting them on a panel together is a recipe for disaster. Or that someone just generally prefers not to be on panels with someone else, and that it wouldn't be a disaster were they to be on panels together, but it might just generally be better for all concerned to avoid such a possibility. For me to list all the conflicts that exist would be both highly inaccurate and highly impolitic. If you'd like to know what I know, ask me personally.
• Suitability: Unfortunately, interest alone is not always an adequate indicator of how good someone would be for a panel. People who go to panels generally prefer to see professionals discussing things they are specialized in. (This leads into a discussion about the pro/amateur split in fandom, but that quickly becomes a rant, so I won't go into it.) Also, some people who believe they are eminently well qualified to discuss certain topics actually aren't. Unclear thinking; excessive tangents; loony ideas that masquerade as authoritative; you can probably imagine all the possible problems. This is a very touchy subject, and for me to go into any more detail would be even more impolitic. Again, ask me (Rachel Kronick) if you'd like a more direct answer.
• Your own definitions of what it means to be good for programming are also extremely important. Many people believe that interest really is the only requirement for being on a panel; others believe that only pros should be allowed anywhere near a microphone; others believe that only people they've personally vetted should be on programming; others believe that the person who came up with the idea for a panel should always be on it; etc. etc. etc. There are too many possible standards out there for me to give specific information that accommodates all of them.

For all these reasons, I can't give a detailed list of who's suitable for which programming. Please contact me if you'd like more details.