Proposals that arrive by email come in every shape. One speaker writes three lines. Another pastes a whole paper. Reading them side by side is slow. I would rather give every speaker the same questions, so the programme committee can compare them fairly.
About the speaker
Name, email, organisation and a short bio. You need these to reach people and to print the programme. One box asks whether this would be a first talk, so you can find newcomers who might want a mentor.
About the talk
Title, abstract, format, level and co-speakers. The abstract question asks what the audience will be able to do afterwards. That keeps proposals concrete and easy to rank.
Practical details
A link to a past talk, whether travel help is needed and whether the speaker can present in person. These answers decide who you can actually schedule.
Who fills it and who reads it
Speakers fill it once. Your committee reads rows in the CSV. A speaker can also ask their own AI to help. It might ask "What is your talk about, in two sentences?" Then "Which format fits: talk, workshop or panel?" Then "Have you given this talk before?" It shows every answer and sends only after a yes. See agent-fillable forms.
A tip
Keep the abstract limit short. Long limits invite essays. When talks are chosen, a workshop registration form collects sign ups for hands-on sessions. If a band plays at your conference dinner, a song request form gathers wishes in the same way. More ideas live in forms for events.
Questions
How do I compare proposals fairly?
Download the CSV and add a score column for each reviewer. Every proposal arrives with the same fields in the same order, so reviewers compare like with like.
Can I set a submission deadline?
Yes. Set close_at to your call for papers deadline and the form stops taking proposals then. Set max_responses as well if you can only review so many.
Should speakers upload slides here?
No. The form takes no file uploads. It asks for a link to a past talk or slides instead, which also shows you how the speaker presents.