# Call for speakers: editable public page and private workflow

Copy this file for one event edition. Replace every bracketed prompt and the example submission URL with a confirmed fact or verified link, or remove them. Section 2 is **public page copy to edit and publish**. Sections 1 and 3–7 are **private working notes**; do not publish them with the page. This worksheet does not submit proposals, send decisions, or create an agreement with speakers.

## 1. Confirm the opportunity (private)

| Decision | Confirmed event record or owner |
| --- | --- |
| Event name, edition, date, location or online format | [ ] |
| Audience and programme purpose | [ ] |
| Already committed/invited sessions | [ ] |
| Open slots by track, format, length, language and room/stream | [ ] |
| Allowed co-presenters, panels and submissions per person | [ ] |
| Participation conditions approved for publication | [ ] |
| Call opening and closing date, time and time zone | [ ] |
| Internal review and decision dates | [ ] |
| Applicant reply date and owner | [ ] |
| Public page URL, proposal form URL and question route | [ ] |
| Final public-copy approver | [ ] |

Do not publish a fee, travel benefit, recording plan, session slot or reply date that the responsible owner has not confirmed. Keep private contact data and submitted proposals in the controlled intake system, not in this shared drafting file.

## 2. Public call page skeleton (copy and edit)

# Speak at [event name and edition]

**[Event date and place or online format].** [One or two sentences about the audience and the questions this event explores.] We invite proposals for [confirmed number or description of open places] in [tracks or topics]. [Say clearly if only particular formats are open.]

## What we are looking for

- **Session formats and lengths:** [Confirmed formats, durations and any language options].
- **Topics:** [Two or three illustrative themes, plus the boundary for related ideas].
- **Who may propose:** [Confirmed eligibility and any limit on proposals per person].
- **What the audience should gain:** [Relevant learning or experience goal].

## Participation and selection

[State only confirmed in-person/online/hybrid conditions, equipment or interpretation arrangements, and any approved fee, admission, travel or recording expectations. If an item is not decided, do not invent a benefit or obligation.]

We will consider [plain-language criteria that match the internal review rubric]. [Explain the stages of review and, if applicable, how a shortlisted proposal becomes a confirmed session.] We plan to email decisions by **[verified date]**. [Name the next confirmation step for selected speakers if known.]

## Submit a proposal

Please provide [the actual fields needed for review, such as a working title, short abstract, format, audience level, learning outcome and relevant experience]. [State any word limit or file format only if the live form enforces it.]

**Deadline: [date] at [time] [named time zone].** [State whether edits or multiple submissions are allowed, if relevant.]

**[Submit a session proposal](https://replace-with-verified-submission-url.example)**

Questions or trouble with the form? Contact [approved staffed public route]. For event attendance or tickets, use [separate attendee route if applicable].

## 3. Proposal field inventory (private)

For each field, record why it is needed now. If a detail can wait until a speaker confirms, remove it from the first-round form.

| Field / prompt | Review or production purpose | Required? | Length/format instruction | Label and error message checked | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Session title | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Short abstract | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Format / track / duration | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Audience level / learning outcome | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Relevant experience | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Reply contact | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Other: [only if justified] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 4. Review and decision record (private)

Agree the rubric before the call opens. Define what each factor means and how disagreements are resolved. A score is not a decision explanation.

| Published criterion | What reviewers examine | Rating or note method | Reviewer | Decision owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fit with event purpose | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Value for the intended audience | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Clarity and feasibility in proposed format | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Other published criterion | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

| Controlled proposal ID (no private details) | Eligibility check | Reviewers assigned | Status: review / clarify / shortlist / decline / reserve | Reason in controlled record | Decision owner and date | Applicant reply sent? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

Check the proposed lineup for duplicate topics, missing tracks and actual available slots. Record conflicts or prior relationships through the team's decision process. A shortlist or reserve status is not a public speaker confirmation.

## 5. Reply plan (private)

| Audience | Reply owner | Due date | Essential next step | Sent/checked |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Accepted, awaiting speaker confirmation | [ ] | [ ] | Confirm by [date]; resolve open conditions | [ ] |
| Not selected | [ ] | [ ] | Thank applicant; state result without an invented promise | [ ] |
| Reserve, if used | [ ] | [ ] | State actual status and decision window | [ ] |
| Clarification needed | [ ] | [ ] | Ask one specific question and give a reply date | [ ] |
| Every applicant if decision date changes | [ ] | [ ] | New realistic update date | [ ] |

Move a selected session to the public programme only after its speaker confirms the final title, description, name, time and participation details. Hand confirmed speakers an operational brief separately.

## 6. Applicant-path publish test (private)

- [ ] Public call page matches the confirmed event edition, date, format and audience.
- [ ] Open places, accepted formats, deadline **with time zone**, review criteria, reply date and participation terms are accurate.
- [ ] Main event page points to the current call page; ticket/attendee routes are visually and verbally distinct from speaker proposals.
- [ ] The live proposal action opens the intended form with the same event name.
- [ ] Required fields, labels, instructions and correction messages make sense with keyboard and phone use.
- [ ] A clearly synthetic test proposal reaches the intended reviewer and receives the described acknowledgement.
- [ ] A deliberately invalid test entry can be corrected; no real applicant information is needed for this check.
- [ ] Public question route reaches a person assigned to reply during the call.
- [ ] All offered language versions contain the same current deadline, conditions and links.
- [ ] At closure, the application action is replaced or explained; it does not silently lead to a closed form.

| Live URL | Tester / date | Issue found | Owner | Retest result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 7. Closure and programme handoff (private)

| Item | Owner | Complete? | Where verified |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Received proposals reconciled with acknowledgements and support cases | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Every applicant received the promised decision or a timely date change | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Every selected speaker explicitly confirmed or was returned to open status | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Final public session facts approved and added to agenda/profile | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Speaker briefing and rehearsal route handed off | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Public call page marked closed and linked to programme if useful | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Correction owner for call page and programme recorded | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |