We (the RMLLSec16 org team) decided to do a survey among our attendees to collect the feedback and to be able to improve our conference/topic practices. We have started to expose some initial learnings during our rump session talk.


  • Almost every registered person came;
  • People enjoyed a good sized conference;
  • Good quality exchanges and open minded people;
  • Talks were interesting;
  • Improvements:
    • Having more networking occasions (social event);
    • Set diversity as one of our main goals;
    • More 20min talks for dynamic;
    • More attention to communication during talks.

Longer story

Please, find below the survey results and some of our conclusions and ideas :)

Survey figures:

  • 92 emails were sent to the 92 persons that finally came to the event (see below).
  • 46 people completed the survey.
  • 50% of effective survey participation. Not bad ioho :)

About attendees

Did everybody come?

How many people finally attend : 97 persons registered, 3 persons didn’t show up but were excused, 2 persons simply didn’t show up.

Attendees status Percent of attendees
Present 94.85%
Absent, excused 3.09%
Absent 2.06%

Our feelings:
We are very pleased to have seen almost every registered person finally came to this free event (no money was engaged from their part so …). Thank you really for the trust and for having been fair with us :)

From where?

From Percent of attendees
Paris 60.86%
France 17.86%
Europe 17.86%
Earth 4.34%

Our feelings:
Definitively not the numbers of a typical international conference but it proves that setting English as the talks language is a good way to have more than 20% of attendees (and often speakers) from outside of France.

Personal vs Professional

We often used to say that the Security Track attendees are not exactly the same as the regular RMLL public. In order to add some facts to this feeling, we tried to know if our attendees were backed by their company to come or not.

Funds Percent of attendees
Personal 45.65%
Professional 55.35%

Our feelings:
Having more than 55% of attendees coming on company funds allows us to say that for this edition the public was somehow more professionally oriented. The location (Paris) may also partly explain this trend (French security scene is mainly located in Paris).


One side of some lack of diversity that we observed but didn’t measure is that a lot of people came from the same professional circles.

Another side is the gender diversity. As said during the rump session, we took this point in charge very late (less than 20 days before the event beginning).

What we did :

  • setting up a Code of Conduct;
  • dedicating a number of seats for women who would like to attend.

Our feelings:
We finally reached a 11% of registered women starting from 4%. The conclusion is that we have to set this goal since day one in order to reach a good diversity level for the conference.

Heard about us

We were curious to know how attendees heard about RMLL Security Track, even more this year with this configuration of an autonomous conference.

Attendees status Percent of attendees
Word of mouth 50.00%
Social network 26.08%
Professional Network 23.91%
RMLL comitee site 13.04%

NB : multiple choices were allowed.

Satisfaction level, positive aspects and improvements

General satisfaction (practical side)

Areas Satisfaction indice (on 5)
Global satisfaction 4.35
Conference location (Paris) 4.86
Conference room 4.60
Reception 4.66
Breaks 4.57

Positives points (number of people mentionning it):

  • cool, relax atmosphere (13);
  • caring, enthusiast and professional staff (7);
  • open minded attendees, good quality and numerous networking exchanges (7);
  • good sized conference providing easy networking (4).

Desired improvements (number of people mentionning the point):

  • having a social event (5);
  • having a coffee/hot drinks break before the start of the talks in the morning (1).

Our feelings:

  • We are of course very pleased from the fact that almost everyone enjoyed the conference on its practical and networking aspect.
  • The fact that the size of the conference facilitates exchanges between attendees is a very positive signal for us.
  • The importance you put on exchanges and networking is emphasized by your desire to have a social event for the conference. We took note of this point and it can be linked to the need for diversity that would give even more quality to exchanges during breaks and social moments :)

Talks satisfaction (or not)

Areas Satisfaction indice (on 5)
Talks 4.20
Rump session 3.97

Some facts about talks:

  • Call for paper: 31 proposals, 20 talks accepted. Among 31, we directly contacted (aka curation) 6 speakers;
  • 1 keynote;
  • a last minute rump session;
  • All curated talks were very appreciated by attendees.

Desired improvements (number of people mentionning the point):

  • a program committee to review the proposals (2);
  • more 20-min talks to get more rythm and concentrate on key points (1);
  • briefing the speakers about communication (1).

Our feelings:

  • We are happy to see that talks issued from a mix of classical Call For Paper and curation are well received by attendees.
  • We took note of the point of having some talks shrinked to 20 mins to maintain rythm and focus on key points.
  • About a program committee, we are not sure to have reached a proper size for having such a heavy process.
  • For the communication and presentation advices: indeed we have not been consistent on providing guidance and assistance on this point equally to all the speakers this year, we have to improve!

Thank to all the people who completed the survey and to you who read all this page !