Hi - my hope is that people would commit to the whole week and use the time during the Session they are not in to do other interesting things - camps that could maybe fit in the talks that didn't get voted in, in depth seminars on stuff, etc. This way everyone is still in town for the social stuff and everyone gets to see a full program. And to buy me beer.
I see the single track advantage in that I'm not missing something by choosing one session over another. I don't really care as much about who is in the track with me, I guess. Q&A might have a different flavor, but with the 20 minute time slots, there's hardly time for Q&A anyway. And anything deep will show up on the channel. D -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jay Luker Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations I agree with Ed: I like that someone is throwing out crazy ideas. I don't particularly like this crazy idea though. If you accept that the downside to multiple tracks is fracturing of the audience/community, then I don't see how holding a 2nd clone of the conference on subsequent days gets around that. It might even be worse because in a parallel multi-track setups you would at least have the benefit of bumping into and networking with the entire, larger group in the off-hours. Of course, inherent in this argument is the idea that it's not the actual talks that provide the most value in attending the conference. Also I agree about the "Speaker Gulag" issue. --jay On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Edward M. Corrado <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I > like the out of the box thinking. > > If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could > just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess. > That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as > needing a room for 500 people the whole time. > > Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I > guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate > in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they > approached it. > > Edward > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray <[email protected]> > wrote: >> That is a crazy idea. I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook >> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers. Still, it would be >> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these >> lines. >> >> >> Peter >> >> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote: >>> Hi - so I know this is nuts. >>> >>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference: >>> >>> 1. Single thread is crucial. >>> 2. 250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference. >>> 3. 400+ people want to attend. >>> 4. The conference takes 2.5 days. >>> >>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week? >>> >>> 1. Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds. >>> 2. Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday. >>> 3. Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each >>> Session, in the same order. >>> 4. Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees. >>> >>> We could serve 500 attendees this way. >>> >>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack >>> fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of >>> the 500 that wasn't in the main conference. People could also just decide >>> to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess. >>> >>> I SAID it was crazy. ;) >>> >>> D >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Murray >> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS >> [email protected] >> +1 678-235-2955 >> >> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW >> Suite 200 >> Atlanta, GA 30309 >> Toll Free: 800.999.8558 >> Fax: 404.892.7879 >> www.lyrasis.org >> >> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
