I'm a logician. That means that I build formal models of language, study the mathematical features of these formal models, and (try to) shed light on philosophical questions while doing so. The logics I study are mostly relevant logics. So I guess that means I'm a relevance logician. Having said that, I need to address something: there is a stereotype of the relevance logician that one may encounter in philosophical communities. This stereotyped curmudgeon bangs their fist on tables and grumbles/hollers/otherwise-antagonistically says things like "silly classical/intuitionistic logicians! Only relevance logics are real logics." I am not that person. I think we can use relevance logics to do interesting things and to build models that capture things that are otherwise hard to capture. I think the same is true of classical logics and intuitionistic logics.
All of that to say that I hope you want to chat about my research, and that if you do, I'll probably want to hear about yours, even if you don't do relevant-y things.
In February I'll be talking about commitment, relative closure and (probably) the logic RWQ at the University of Connecticut. Other than that, if you want to hang out and are in the Twin Cities area, come to a FIG meeting!