Author: Cara Hanman

About Cara Hanman

Marketing and Sponsorship at Software Acumen - creators of Great events from free evening sessions to day long workshops to multi-day conferences all over the UK. Primarily working within the software community in the East of England.

Brexit planning

Currently, the UK is expecting to leave the EU on 31st October 2019. This departure may or may not be undertaken with a deal. Please find below our current suggestions and plans with regards to the impact of Brexit on attending (and our running of) our events.


Who to contact if you have queries about your position

It is best to speak to a visa law expert/professional for the correct and current advice. – good info based on what travel will be like in the event of a No Deal exit. 5 pages long. – UK gov website info on entering the UK after Brexit

Non-EEA nationals requirements

The referendum has no effect upon the UK immigration system and there are no foreseeable changes to the mechanism by which non-EEA nationals can visit, study, work, or settle in the UK.


We are working closely with all of our event venues to ensure they have sufficient plans in place to continue to provide the levels of service we require to smoothly run our events. This includes catering supplies, power, wifi, water and security.


We are working closely with all of our event suppliers to ensure they have sufficient plans in place to continue to provide the levels of service we require to smoothly run our events.

Please note: we will continue to work closely with our venues and suppliers to ensure we are being as green and sustainable as we possibly can be. We are aware that Brexit may have an impact on what products are accessible in the UK and there may be a knock-on effect to the environment and we are committed to continuing to strive for our sustainability goals.


At this time we can only refer to the NHS for details about medicines, staffing, supply and demand. We also recommend travellers explore all their health insurance/travel insurance options and purchase accordingly.

Information from NHS England is here: – continuity of supply of medicines etc

At this time we have been unable to source NHS Scotland’s position on Brexit.

Speaker reimbursement: oh, what a tangled web we weave…

How a simple exercise in updating our Speaker Reimbursement Policy turned into a spider’s web of considerations

We spent 2017 changing how we approached the delicate matter of speaker reimbursement - how we financially support speakers to join our events.

It was a huge undertaking. When we started, we thought it would be a quick job, batted out in a couple of weeks. The reality was more than a year of hard work, research, frank and sometimes uncomfortable conversations. We learnt from some amazing speakers, who were incredibly generous with their time, experience, expertise and thoughts.

Here’s what we did in the past:

A limited number of people on the team were aware of the financials and whether speakers were being paid or not. Others on the team didn't ask how we were doing things or otherwise get involved.

We did what we thought everyone else did. We’d usually discuss fees and/or expenses if the speaker initiated the discussion. A big name keynote could have a high fee agreed because they should bring in lots of ticket sales.

It didn’t enter into the psyche that some people may not realise they could or should ask for a fee - the assumption was people would ask if they wanted to be paid.

We operated in the belief that ticket sales were significantly linked to the keynote speakers we were using. We’ve since learned that whilst they do help people decide to come to an event, they aren’t the only factor. The importance of keynotes was overemphasised when we thought about what participants were basing their decisions on at the point of purchase.

Luckily for us, some lovely professionals were comfortable and confident enough to point out that our approach was actually an issue. They discussed their points of view and highlighted where assumptions were letting us down. They helped us see that what we were doing wasn’t fair and it wasn’t good enough. It didn’t fit with what we were aiming to do, which was to create an equal, inclusive environment.

This feedback fitted perfectly into the conversations we were having around inclusion, fairness, how to serve our community better and a wider discussion around misconceptions in event organising.

What have we discovered?

A fair speaker payment policy sounds simple enough to achieve, but in reality is massively complex because:

  • we want to be fair
  • we want our events to be accessible to any speaker accepted into the programme
  • we want people to submit because they feel safe, welcome and supported and that they’ll have fun and get value from being a part of the event
  • we want our creditors to be paid in a timely manner
  • we want participants to have a great and valuable time at our events
  • we (as individuals in the team) also want to get our payslips at the end of the month and still have jobs at the end of the year

In creating our Speaker Reimbursement Policy (version 1.4), we needed to do a very careful balancing act. I wrote the below and gathered thoughts, comments and additional points from the whole team.

The policy we’ve arrived at is a work in progress. I’m aware it might never be perfect, but we hope that we can keep it current, right and balanced against all the requirements, limitations, wants and needs we have.

Limitations we need to work within

  • Visa requirements mean we can’t pay fees to people who don’t have the right to work in the UK - UK-based event organisers take note. However, we can pay reasonable expenses to everyone who requires that support. This sounds contradictory, but it’s the political and legal limitation we have to work within.
  • We need to balance our ability to pay our creditors (venue, speakers, staff, suppliers including designers/printers/stationery/promotional material, insurance, materials, hosting, credit card payment providers, our accountants and legal advisers, caterers and so on) with our need to keep ticket prices as accessible as possible.
  • People have different cost pressures: those who live locally, travel across country, from Europe, from the USA or elsewhere in the world; walk/cycle vs public transport; short haul flight vs long haul flight; no accommodation needed vs needing accommodation; the differing ideas of what level of travel or accommodation is acceptable.
  • What do we need to do to offer fair treatment to people who speak as a requirement of their job and therefore may have expenses covered by their employer (ie are paid by their employer to speak, including receiving travel and accommodation)?
  • Our programme manager sees some speakers submitting the same sessions to several of our events, sometimes for 2 years or more. They are making the cost of creating the session work for them, but is it fair to charge each event they go to the full price of that work, or are they submitting it many times to cover the cost of that work? This becomes a bigger question for those who don’t then spend time modifying the work after each presentation to improve it or tailor it to the specific audience.
  • Some speakers prepare a new talk for every event.
  • We want to provide a level playing field for our speakers.
  • We want to be transparent.
  • We want to acknowledge that our speakers provide the content for our events and while they get the benefits of a free ticket to the event (usually valued in the £100s and unavailable for sale), exposure to our audience, professional promotion and so on, they have also invested in speaking through developing their expertise and spending their time on creating and presenting the session.
  • We want to make it possible for first time speakers to begin their speaking journey at our events - they may require more mentoring or financial support to do so.

We talked to speakers directly, read blogs and Twitter threads, did our own research (some of it carried out by our own Mark Dalgarno) and explored the depth of experience on the team. In doing so, we also came up with the following considerations and questions.

We all have different reasons for being at an event

Everyone’s circumstances are different. People speak at events for a whole range of different reasons:

  • to promote their work
  • to make money (professional speaker)
  • to share their passion
  • because it’s part of their role
  • to see if they like speaking (for first timers)
  • to support their peers
  • to get a ticket to an event that they couldn’t otherwise attend
  • to travel and see the world…

Fairness is all about perspective

What’s fair to me may not be the same as what’s fair to you. I might think everyone should be paid, but someone else might think:

  • we should support our communities and only do free speaking
  • rather than get paid, I’d like to be given a product or service
  • I get paid by my employers - none of this other stuff matters to me
  • it would be good if the event was fun/well organised/had a free bar in the evenings/had lots of freebies or some other perk to make being away from home worthwhile
  • a free ticket is worth it to me
  • I only support small local events and I understand they may not have the budget to pay me a fee or cover my expenses - that’s fair to me

Fairness to the organisers

A point that’s rarely spoken about is fairness to the event organisers. They too put in a lot of work to organise the event and their work is essential to making the event a success for speakers and participants alike. The on-site team puts in extremely long hours, from days or weeks before the event starts until after it finishes.

Every organiser is different - some rely entirely on volunteers, others only use temps, some have dedicated teams and others still are a mix of some or all of those options. Whatever the mix, being able to provide the team with travel, accommodation, refreshments, any uniforms, pay (if that’s part of the deal) and space to rest is a requirement - the baseline for fairness for the team.

And for the organising company themselves, there is a huge risk in investing in an event. No matter what happens in the end, they must front up money and time from the moment they decide to put on an event. Money they may not get back.

Can’t an organiser just get more sponsors to pay?

The ultimate wish!

Sponsors help to make events enjoyable (delightful even), bring buzz and conversation. Depending on the event, sponsors might bring freebies, exhibitions, competitions, products and services, a soft sell or a hard sell.

However, that doesn’t mean that there are sponsors lining up to bring those things to your event. Sponsorship relies on benefits to both sides. The event needs to meet a need (or want) for a potential sponsor and the potential sponsor equally needs to meet a need (or want) for the event.

And the unicorns - the big name company that apparently ‘has loads of cash’ - well, everyone wants a piece of that pie. Is your voice loud enough (is your event interesting, relevant and at the right price point?) to be heard over the thousands of others asking for exactly the same thing?

From the seat I sit in, sponsorship is vital to the success of an event - but you absolutely cannot ever depend on it. Ever.

Can’t you just sell more tickets?

Participants have a vast choice of events to take part in and generally go to 1 or 2 conferences a year, maximum. They choose those conferences based on a variety of reasons. For example, they may choose events that have a transparent, fair speaker payment policy; or ones that support inclusivity; or ones that only target a particular group of people; or only go to new events, or ones that have been around for a long time. It may be about events that support first-time speakers, or ones that only attract the big name professional speakers.

Or it could be all about events that are great rather than big - where you’re not stuck in a massive room all day listening to talks but feel like you can meet everyone there easily and enjoy practical, hands-on sessions. Or it might be about events/destinations where you are in a space that’s comfortable to be in for 2-3 days or somewhere quirky and interesting.

Others may decide based on where you get good quality food, or a higher level of organisation or goodies - or because the company you want to work for is exhibiting or speaking there. The list just goes on.

I don’t believe any event can meet all those needs or reasons and nor should they try - some of them are completely contradictory. It is those reasons that make ‘just sell more tickets’ a wishful statement. That’s without touching on things like venue capacity.

Can’t you negotiate with venues on their fees?

We do. They also need to pay their staff and make a profit. We don’t want them skimping on food or customer service, maintenance or training just to keep our costs down. As organisers, we also need our venues to be well-run or everyone’s experience suffers.

Can’t you use free or cheaper venues?

No. Our events are in comfortable venues that are relatively easy to travel to and stay near. Good wifi is not something we compromise on. Or decent food. Our participants are going to have a good experience at an interesting, well-run venue, be well fed and able to expect a good level of safety and support. That means we need to be working with venue staff who are service-oriented. Cheap venues don’t provide the standard we need.

Can’t you spend less money on swag?

Absolutely. But is that really a helpful saving? There is always a cheesy reason for having swag - because we want you to remember us fondly - but we also choose things you will find useful to make that spend work for everyone. Like when your phone/tablet battery has died and you need a pad and pen to keep taking notes while you charge it.

We also keep our swag to a minimum - those tickets our participants spend their hard earned cash (or carefully doled out training budgets) on pay for it, so we don’t go crazy. But we need to have at least a bit of stationery available and I wouldn’t be doing my job (marketing) if I wasn’t insisting on us spending a wee bit more to have our name on our giveaways.

So we approach swag carefully - either buying things we can make available for several years to spread the cost, or negotiating the best price or by getting things we know you will want to use while you are with us (and, hopefully, afterwards too).

All of that is a lot to understand. So we took the step of collating all of our thoughts for Speaker Reimbursement Policy. It looked like this:

  • Expenses should support the reasonable expected cost to travel and stay in the area of the event for its duration.
  • We budget for our maximum speaker expenses based on our expected income from the event.
  • Expenses take precedence over profit to the organisers, but must fit with paying venues, suppliers and other contracted costs.
  • Expenses should be available to everyone accepted for speaking. We have a segment in WeReview, our speaker submission platform, that asks speakers to confirm if they need expenses and an estimate of those expenses - we also ask where the speaker will be travelling from. To fit with budgeting and planning, we need to know this detail in advance, so we’ve tried to make it as clear as possible that everyone has a right to request expenses at the time of submitting.
  • Some people are expected to speak at events by their employer. The employer covers all their expenses and provides the time to prepare sessions within their contracted hours - is it right and fair for the event organisers to also reimburse those speakers?
  • We aim to provide expenses that enable good quality (not luxury) travel and accommodation. We do not have the budgets to pay for first class travel or accommodation.
  • Our submitter information (available on the event websites throughout the submission window) contains the details of what expenses are available. The submission form provides space to include your expected expenses and when we issue acceptances we make it clear how much we’ll pay in expenses. We regularly investigate the costs of travel and accommodation from a variety of destinations to ensure travel should be possible within the amount we offer. We expect speakers to take responsibility for deciding whether to accept or decline this amount. Speakers must contact us and let us know before they book travel/accommodation if they think they will exceed the budget. Where possible, we’ll see if we are able to amend our offer on a case by case basis (including when a speaker is invited to cover a last minute gap in the programme) but this would not be the norm.
  • We are unable to pay expenses we were not aware of at the time of accepting a session. We make this information as clear as we can at the time of submission - both in the submitter information and on WeReview.
  • We pay the costs of supplies needed to run sessions over and above agreed expenses (where we don’t already provide those supplies). This includes pens, paper, booklets, flip charts, cards etc.
  • People travelling a long way will require more funding.
  • A free ticket to the event is a benefit. We know that some speakers do submit to events for the free ticket as they would not otherwise be able to attend. We also know that some events don’t provide a free ticket to speakers. (It’s worth mentioning that we have capped the number of free speaker tickets available based on the length of session and we offer a discount for additional speakers where needed. This is because a short session should not require a lot of people to lead it.)
  • We want our speakers to have a good experience at our events. That’s why we don’t force them to commit to attending the whole event if this doesn’t fit with their schedule. So our budget includes all speaker costs for the whole event, and this impacts ticket price, but ensuring that speakers enjoy coming to our events is important to us. Balancing the cost so it doesn’t get out of hand is also important to making the event valuable and accessible.
  • Speakers will still be paid their agreed expenses regardless of how many tickets are sold - there is a surety there even though there are no contracts in place. We’ve been operating for a decade and have always paid the agreed expenses - even, in many cases, where a speaker has pulled out at the last minute.
  • There is an accepted hierarchy of speakers:
    • Keynotes have a higher profile and will help extend our audience/reach and should be reimbursed for that. Often, well known and respected speakers will only keynote, never submit or accept general programme positions. There are a large number who have a set fee (in the thousands) but a smaller number will accept to go somewhere interesting, to meet a new audience or because the policies and practices of an event/organiser appeal to them.
    • Invited speakers are currently an unresolved question. They come from various places (known to us already, known to our contacts, submitted to another of our events on a relevant topic and asked to share it again etc) but are not keynotes so may not help extend our reach. They may be filling a gap in the programme or replacing a speaker that has pulled out. They may have been unable to present at another of our events and been offered a place on ‘this event’ instead. So it’s hard to know if they should be offered a higher level of expenses or the same as the general programme.
    • General programme speakers should be reimbursed for coming to the event to share their content. They will benefit from their involvement in the event by: making new contacts and reaffirming existing ones; demonstrating knowledge, experience and skill; supporting their own learning. The event benefits by having content to share - the lifeblood of an event. Ticket sales happen as a result lots of factors, including the programme as a whole rather than because of specific individuals on the programme.
  • There is an issue of unfairness if we offer one keynote (for eg) £1000 expenses because they are travelling from the US/don’t have the right to work here but we offer a keynote who does have the right to work here £1000 expenses plus a fee. We learnt the hard way that this is a very poor policy. Speakers talk to each other. Luckily for us, a couple also spoke to us about their discovery of the difference in the reimbursement offered. We inadvertently made them feel like we treated them all poorly.

After weighing up the limitations, issues and known expectations we decided:

  • If we are not able to offer everyone a fee, we shouldn’t offer a fee to anyone. That is why we now talk about reimbursement and expenses - not fees.
  • For simplicity’s sake, the best approach we could see involved tiers of reimbursement broken into a grid of speaker type and zone of origin (where you’re travelling to the event from).

Our Event Producers have a good awareness of the general price of accommodation and travel for each zone of origin and so we set about crunching the numbers. It took some time. We’ve still got questions we suspect can’t be answered until we’ve used the policy a few times.

We will review the amounts regularly and are always open to feedback but we think, right now, our Speaker Reimbursement Policy balances the weights of all the limitations and considerations as well as we can.

Our policy is available in the Submitter Information on any site with an open Call for Speakers. If you spot somewhere we could make an improvement, please do get in touch.

How we got to our Code of Conduct

About the Code of Conduct we have today

Conference codes of conduct have been a simmering hot topic for a good couple of years now (it’s 2017 as I write). I started working at Software Acumen in 2012. We created our first code of conduct in 2014 after many months of investigation including looking at the Ada Initiative, blogs about codes of conduct, other conference codes of conduct (which I’ll call CoCs now) and speaking to people like Ashe Dryden (who, incidentally, wrote a great blog post about CoCs).

What happened that made us create a CoC?

Nothing. Well, nothing directly in front of us. We saw a growing conversation out in the events industry and the software industry that resonated with us. We’d never had an outright example of bad behaviour. At least, we don’t think we had. It would be naive to ignore the fact that things may have happened that were never brought to our attention. I hope we haven’t though.

It would be nice to think that, because all our interactions with our participants were positive and all our feedback was positive, that no one walked away feeling a bit icky or a bit let down or – far worse – violated. We may never know unless someone tells us otherwise. However, thinking we provided a safe environment wasn’t a good reason not to also provide a CoC.

We created our first CoC because we didn’t want to be reactive. Far better to have a code and an action plan* in place and never use them, than not have anything in place and be caught out.

Since then, we’ve updated our CoC 3 times. We’ve seen a misunderstanding blow up and blow away in a matter of minutes (and so not had to enact our action plan) and we’ve had to enact it once. Fortunately, that one time became a learning process for all involved.

For me, also because of the timing of other events happening in our ‘offices’, I learnt that sometimes when emotions are high, you may not want to make an immediate complaint. Maybe bawling your eyes out in front of the lovely smiley, helpful (hopefully) organising team isn’t part of how you see yourself. Perhaps you’d like to claw back a moment of dignity that has been lost before you say anything. Perhaps you are so furious you just want to calm down first. Or maybe your process is to speak to the person who has upset you first and try to clear the air with them directly.

I hope you would put that step aside if your safety were in question, but equally not all code breaches are because someone made you feel exceptionally uncomfortable by touching your body and telling you you look sexy in your flannel/plaid shirt. Sometimes people hurt your feelings in a way that makes you feel unsafe, unsure and vulnerable.

That’s why we reviewed our CoC and action plan to ensure people knew they could come to us, at any time. Previous iterations worked on the assumption you’d turn up at registration and demand our help. Even though we know life isn’t like that, it took a range of things not even related to the CoC to bring that incorrect assumption to our attention.

“Breaches” means what?

If you’ve followed the path so many of us have and created a code of conduct that lists the things you will not tolerate: can you recognise those things? Can you tell the difference between someone standing up for the rights of others and someone inciting hate or violence? Are you sure?

I think I’m right in saying that behaviour is a social spectrum. Between the clear, faultless space of extremely good behaviour and the miserable murk of extremely bad behaviour, there is this huge grey area where most of us tread occasionally.

I’m a foreign female in the UK. I say ‘guys’ to mean ‘group of people that I know who are before me’ as would many of my peers back home. I don’t think there is an instance where I’d say ‘guy’ in the singular, so to me this is ok, because I use ‘guys’ as a neutral term. But it’s sexist (or exclusionary) to some people. And I don’t even realise I’m saying it a lot of the time because it is so much a part of my cultural/generational background. I also absolutely do not mean it offensively and I think it is fair to say that – as far as terms go – it is not an offensive term in itself and it is not normally or consistently used to deliberately cause offence.

Other people are offended by the use of terms like ‘man hours’ or ‘manning a stand’ or the default use of ‘he/his’ to generalise statements. To many people, these ‘little’ offences are silly, something you should ignore, or things that don’t even reach their radar. To others, they are definitely unacceptable. Because of this (the fact one person may think an action or behaviour is ok where another might not agree), these examples find themselves as part of the grey area.

The way you raise a question in a conference or meetup session could be seen as aggressive by others and you might not even realise that – you’re just making your point and you feel strongly. = Grey area.

The people you refer to in your next session might be present – will they appreciate it if you call them out? Have you spoken to them about this before? Should they have a problem if what you say is ‘true’? Would their friends and colleagues feel it was fair in their absence and should you care? = Grey area.

There are millions of other points along the spectrum that fall in the grey area. Will your CoC be able to deal with these? Have you created an action plan off the back of that? Do the people you expect to manage any breaches feel comfortable with your action plan? Are they equipped to deal with it? Do they understand what your overriding goal is from having a CoC? Do you understand it?

The CoC as a tick box exercise

It’s a popular thing. Everyone’s doing it. A growing number of people are even refusing to attend or speak at events if they don’t have a CoC. “So let’s get one.”

I would like to believe that’s not what’s happening out in the world. Sure, everyone is following the path we followed – as professional event organisers it’s our responsibility to have this corner covered. The same as we have insurance and a first aid kit and check the venue’s safety plans.

But what if there’s someone out there who is just looking to tick a box?


If you’ve decided, for whatever reason, that you need a CoC, then be ready for the work involved. Be ready to spend time examining dozens of other CoCs, to read blog post after blog post on the need for them, to read uncomfortable blogs, articles and Twitter threads on violations and reactions. If you think a copy/paste job is enough then you are going to struggle when things get real.

Yes, you should always check to see if you can borrow another person’s/entity’s CoC. Yes, you should acknowledge where it came from. But be ready for the work you will still need to do. You will need to understand what those words mean, how they apply to the audience you will impose them upon, how you will deal with reactions and complaints, how you will handle breaches, what a breach means, who deals with breaches, what the law in your country requires from you, what your insurance will expect from you, how you publicise your Coc….the list goes on.

There is no tick box exercise. Sorry. There isn’t. This is a job for life.

Once is enough?

So you got a CoC, it’s on your website, it’s on your emails, it’s on your tickets, it’s on posters and in any packs you hand out. People love it. You’re getting positive feedback, you’re seeing an increase in equality or more broad diversity. Things are going great.

And then someone tells you of a breach.

You deal with the breach (have a pat on the back – they are not fun and it’s hard work). You all move on.

Is that enough? We’ve only had one breach to deal with and we’re on our fourth iteration since we started this journey. We tend to learn things in batches, so each of those iterations has involved several updates to the CoC. We intend to update it every time we learn something new, see a gap in the coverage, examine more intensely our driving goals and aims and spot where we could do better. AND whenever we have a breach.
Breaches mean something happened on our watch. We will continue to examine what we did that allowed that breach to happen and how we can prevent it happening again and take steps to improve ourselves. We are learning that a code of conduct is a never-ending journey not a final answer or a silver bullet.

Yes, that means reading uncomfortable blogs, tweets, Facebook and LinkedIn posts that we may want to close our eyes to. Yes, it means being a little more up to date with prevailing law. Yes, it means looking at our own behaviour – we aren’t as shiny and glossy as we lead ourselves to believe. But every time you improve, you polish that shine a bit. Every time you stand up for someone, protect their right to a safe environment, defend their right to be at your event, you improve yourself too. And it is totally worth it.

Is format important?

A lot of CoC’s have a TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) component. We haven’t overtly split it out, though it’s there. We have also genuinely had people tell us “it’s not enough to tell us to be nice to each other”. So we hit you with the whole expectation and we’ll back it up when we need to.

Our latest iteration includes a new section to give you an idea of what we will do if there is a breach. It says, at the top, that our aim isn’t to punish – unless we have to. We want to give people to chance to learn and grow at our events so it seems silly not to include this opportunity in the CoC. That’s what’s in the nutshell of our CoC. Don’t get me wrong – we’ll take extreme action if we need to – but we’re learning that a lot of breaches are not at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Format is a personal choice. Make sure you understand what your aim is in creating your code. Make it intelligible to your audience and back it up. And never stop evolving and learning from it.

What about my freedom of expression?

Very rarely, I’ve spotted the comment (usually on Twitter) that a code of conduct somehow limits a person’s freedoms. Do you really feel that your freedoms include the right to be badly behaved as an adult out in public? There are 2 options here – you either haven’t understood or fully appreciated why a CoC is important; or you are breaching CoCs all over the place. I don’t think this post can help someone who has no interest in improving their behaviour or considers bad behaviour as their personal right. So I’ll move on to those who don’t understand why people think they are important. Wish me luck.

As conference/event organisers, we have a duty of care for our participants and a desire to make our events welcoming, safe places for everyone. We’re in a fairly white male dominated industry sector and yet we know that just looking at a room of our participants doesn’t tell us which of them are vulnerable and to what they are vulnerable.

Every one of our participants – regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexuality, physical or mental ability, educational or financial background (etc) – deserves our duty of care. Creating a safe space is really important to those people being able to learn, expand their networks and have an enjoyable experience. A code of conduct and the action plan gives us a real practical statement of how we will provide that care when it comes to putting a whole different bunch of people in a room for 1, 2 or 3 days.

When we organise an event, we ensure that we have first aiders available, that we have the right insurances, that refreshments are provided, and safety is a natural part of that list for us. We’re also trying to avoid the pitfall of expecting you to read our minds by telling you outright what we won’t tolerate. The short-term goal is to make people feel reassured that their safety is important to us. The long-term goal is to change attitudes and behaviours that are unacceptable.

If you have never felt vulnerable I don’t know how to put you in a place to feel true empathy. But I’m pretty sure, if you’re still reading this now, that it’s possible. Maybe talk to the people around you who struggle to say no. Listen to the excuses they have for taking on the extra work, look at who they are as people. Do they have the same job title as you? Do they get paid as well as you? Are they the odd one out in your team (ie a male in an all female team? The only redhead? …) and are they getting all the rubbish jobs? Do they fear for how people will view them or if their chances to rise up the ladder will be impacted if they say no? Are you made to feel the same way about jobs? And if it’s a friend or family member, adjust those questions to suit. Chances are, you will gain a lot from reading between the lines of the answers you get – especially if you widen the conversation to ask the people passing on the work why they asked that person to take it and not you.

A code of conduct is our way of creating a level playing field on our turf and our time.

What is our goal?

We’ve moved away from the idea that any and all breaches of the code should just be punished. It’s an end result if the situation is serious or learning is not possible but it’s not a goal. Real life doesn’t neatly deliver up scenarios where one person is bad and the other is good and an heroic figure swoops in to the rescue. Real life usually dishes up complex issues involving people who are usually both good folk but one of them has made a mistake.

So it turns out our goal is the same goal as we have for our events – to provide a safe place for people to learn and grow. Making sure that everyone gets the chance to do that is important to us – change happens from learning new things. The ripple of change is one we definitely want to spread out into the world.

See our Code of Conduct

You can see an example of version 3 of our Code of Conduct here on our Agile Cambridge 2017 website.
You can see an example of version 4 of our Code of Conduct here on our UX Scotland 2018 website.


*I haven’t mentioned any real specifics for action plans. They make your CoC a complete actionable document but are specifically applicable to your audience, your team and your environment so should be carefully tailored. I do recommend, as mentioned above, that you ensure the people who carry out the action plan aren’t just aware of it but are comfortable with what is expected of them, are good at dealing with people and with fraught situations. I would also recommend having support for the team members who carry out the action plan – it’s pretty stressful, can put them in the line of abuse (verbal or physical, potentially) and also could trigger memories and pretty strong personal reactions. Hopefully it’s something they won’t have to do often, but they still need to be cared for.

Announcing creativeConf Cambridge

Software Acumen and CamCreatives join forces to launch a practical conference for thinkers and doers in public and private sector organisations

creativeConf Cambridge 2015 will provide participants with the tools needed to develop creative skills in an entertaining and inspirational way

Software Acumen, a company that specialises in running practical conferences for software practitioners, and CamCreatives, a centralized voice for creative people in Cambridgeshire, have joined forces to launch a practical conference to promote the concept of creativity in the workplace and at home.

Called creativeConf Cambridge 2015, this hands-on event is taking place at Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT on the 24th October. Early bird tickets are available from the creativeConf Cambridge website

creativeConf Cambridge will examine what the term “creativity” means and will help participants discover their own creative skills and ideas by participating in a variety of practical and interactive sessions.

Sessions will be led by a variety of creative thinkers including Dr Stephanie Taylor, a Social psychologist from the Open University and co-author of a book titled Contemporary Identities of Creativity and Creative Work (Ashgate, 2012), Simon Jack from Creative Encounters training company and Vaiva Kalnikaite from Dovetailed, a UX studio and innovation lab that has developed a 3D printer that can make edible fruit.

creativeConf Cambridge is not only for those who are actively involved in creativity on a daily basis, it is particularly intended for individuals who do not consider themselves to be naturally creative. At the event participants will find out how creativity can be used to encourage team building, overcome communications barriers and solve problems in a fun and entertaining way.

Participants will also learn how to apply creative principles to their own personal circumstances and will leave the event feeling entertained and inspired.

“We are all subconsciously creative,” says Mark Dalgarno, Owner of Software Acumen. “Writing, coding, cooking – all requires creativity. We wanted to host an event that covers all the creative disciplines and give individuals an opportunity to discover and develop creative ideas that can be put to use in a practical way.”

creativeConf Cambridge 2015 is being sponsored by Creative Front, an initiative led by Anglia Ruskin University to stimulate, incubate and grow further the creative industries in Cambridge and the surrounding area.

The UX Scotland Panel says…

We spoke to our Panel members – the wonderful group of UXers who helped shape our programme and your UX Scotland experience – and asked them what they took away from their conference experience. Here are some of their responses:

“UX Scotland was a brilliant event. The sessions were great and I’m increasingly sketchnoting which has proved incredibly useful. That said, what I appreciated most was getting to meet so many brilliant people. The conversations I’ve had post-event have been incredibly useful. In short, UX Scotland helped me learn, find new collaborators, mentors and friends!” Francois Roshdy

“UX Scotland blends the best of local practitioners with some international flavours, too. With just the right ratio of presentations and hands on workshops, plenty of inspirational ideas were shared, as well as hands-on tools and techniques that I could use once back at the office. Couple this with a friendly, relaxed atmosphere and you’re onto a winner.
The things I found most useful were Jeff Gothelf’s workshop on ‘Better Product definition with Lean UX and design thinking’, and Bonny Colville-Hyde’s teachings on storyboarding. Thoroughly enjoyed Michele Ide-Smith’s Sketchnoting workshop, too. Now use these techniques regularly. ” – Rhys Nealon

“Great venue and good conference. It was fantastic to see the hidden UXers of Scotland all gathered in one place and take the opportunity to meet with them. I only managed to attend one complete session on making UX comics. This was an intriguing methodology which I could see being of value. At the least it stretched my artistic skills!” – Kevin White

“UX Scotland was a fantastic opportunity to bring together UX practitioners and advocates from across Scotland and beyond. Considering this was the inaugural conference, I was surprised by the volume and diversity of the attendees and this range of backgrounds and roles really added to the depth of the conference. Overall, it was a great couple of days, with many interesting discussions, new techniques and forged relationships. I look forward to 2014!” – Stephen Denning