EuroStar 2023’s rigorous program curation, led by a Program Chair and committee, prioritizes quality over quantity with a <10% acceptance rate, emphasizing balanced, community-vetted content. Challenges include filtering AI-generated submissions and encouraging speakers to share personal, practitioner-driven insights over polished but inauthentic content.

Richard Seidl Software Testing

This is the other podcast on Software Testing by Richard Seidl, the episodes are in spoken German but the show notes and site are written in English. Our summaries are generated from AI transcript translations.

• https://www.richard-seidl.com/en/blog/tag/podcast-software-testing
• https://www.richard-seidl.com/en/

Episode Details

• Show Notes: https://www.richard-seidl.com/de/blog/eurostar-2026
• Published: 2026-03-03T05:00:00Z
• Duration: 1919
• Author: Richard Seidl - Experte fur Software-Entwicklung und Testautomatisierung

Overview

The podcast outlines the rigorous process of curating a high-quality conference program, using the EuroStar software testing conference in Oslo as a case study. A key focus is the collaborative selection method led by a Program Chair, which involves a committee evaluating a large volume of submissions to maintain a strict acceptance rate of under 10%. Emphasis is placed on ensuring thematic coherence, balancing diverse content areas, and providing detailed feedback to rejected proposals to help submitters improve future submissions. Challenges discussed include assessing AI-generated abstracts, favoring proposals grounded in personal experience over generic content, and promoting diversity in speaker backgrounds to avoid homogeneity.

Practical examples of program content include testing methodologies applied in niche industries like wind energy and game development, as well as the integration of AI in testing with an emphasis on human-AI collaboration. Strategies for effective conference submissions are also highlighted, such as using video assessments to evaluate presenters and refining proposals based on feedback. The discussion underscores the importance of aligning conference themes with industry-relevant topics while maintaining high standards of quality and inclusivity in speaker selection.

What If

• What if you implemented an AI-generated content detection tool in your next software project to ensure quality and authenticity?

  • Concrete Move: Integrate an AI content detection tool (e.g., Originality.ai or Turnitin) into your project’s documentation or code submission process to flag incoherent or unoriginal contributions.
  • Why Now: The text highlights EuroStars use of such tools to filter poor-quality submissions, emphasizing the need for human expertise over AI-generated content. This aligns with the growing importance of quality assurance in both software and conference curation.
  • Expected Upside: Improved clarity and originality in documentation, ensuring your team or community contributors focus on actionable insights rather than AI-generated noise.

• What if you created a 30-second video submission as a prerequisite for speaking at your next event or workshop?

  • Concrete Move: Require potential speakers or contributors to submit a brief video demonstrating their presentation style, energy, and key points before accepting their proposal.
  • Why Now: EuroStars success is tied to its rigorous speaker evaluation process, which includes video submissions to filter for quality. This mirrors the value of pre-screening in both software and community-driven projects.
  • Expected Upside: Higher-quality presentations that resonate more with the audience, reducing the risk of underwhelming or irrelevant content.

• What if you established a small, rotating review committee for your software projects, modeled after EuroStars program committee structure?

  • Concrete Move: Form a 35 person internal committee with diverse expertise (e.g., QA, dev, UX) to evaluate feature proposals, code quality, or user feedback before implementation.
  • Why Now: The text emphasizes how EuroStars committee structure ensures balanced, high-quality outcomes through collaborative filtering. This mirrors the need for cross-functional evaluation in software development.
  • Expected Upside: Faster identification of edge cases, better alignment with user needs, and a more robust product iteration cycle.

Takeaway

• Submit conference proposals with personal, hands-on experience: Focus on sharing real-world examples and lessons from your own work (e.g., testing challenges, automation successes) rather than generic or AI-generated content. This aligns with EuroStars emphasis on authentic, practitioner-driven talks.

• Leverage AI tools strategically for writing: Use AI for grammar checks or structure assistance in proposals, but ensure the core content reflects your expertise and unique insights, as AI-generated abstracts often lack the depth and authenticity required for selection.

• Prepare a short video pitch for speaking engagements: Create a 30-second video showcasing your presentation style and clarity to align with EuroStars criteria for assessing speaker suitability, improving your chances of being selected for talks or workshops.

• Seek diverse feedback early on proposals: Share your conference abstracts or project ideas with colleagues or peers to refine content and structure, ensuring clarity and alignment with audience needs, as emphasized in the discussion on “seeking feedback” to improve quality.

• Build a balanced network of collaborators: Engage with practitioners from varied domains (e.g., game testing, AI tooling, wind energy QA) to gain cross-industry insights, mirroring EuroStars focus on diverse perspectives and non-traditional expertise in program curation.