I think now is exactly the right time to talk about this -- when we have multiple hosting proposals to choose from. Adding some multi-track sessions, like making the conference significantly larger, is controversial, and people can vote based on that.
I am also torn between different factors (weather, trying some multi-track sessions, travel considerations, etc.), but that's always the case when deciding on hosting proposals. -Esme > On 02/23/15, at 11:36 AM, Salazar, Christina <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What Josh said: > > In a multi-track, you are forced to choose and never get to see what is going > on in the areas that you've been forced to opt out of. Which I think would be > a shame since some of the "non-technical" talks really NEED to be heard by > those who are there purely for the "tech." > > I do think someone from Philly needs to answer the original question: can > they put on a single track conference if that's what the community wants. It > will make a difference it seems, in the vote. > > Then if BOTH LA and Philly can do single track (or multitrack or some other > permutation) we can vote on each city as equals. > > This way we don't need to debate the merits of single or multitrack at the > same time as we're debating the merits of LA versus Philly. > > > Christina Salazar > Systems Librarian > John Spoor Broome Library > California State University, Channel Islands > 805/437-3198 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Joshua Gomez > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:31 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > > Allowing for "focus" via multi-track also enables echo chambers in which > people that could probably most benefit from non-code related talks never see > them. > > As a possible solution, we could have a post-conference afternoon on Thursday > where people could meet to dig deeper into themes that occurred during the > general session. Similar to what happened this year with the breakouts at the > end, but with a little more emphasis and organization. > > -Josh > > > Joshua Gomez | Sr. Software Engineer > Getty Research Institute | Los Angeles, CA > 310-440-7421 > >>>> "Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)" <[email protected]> >>>> 02/23/15 11:19 AM >>> > A couple of thoughts: > > 1) It takes a lot of effort to put these proposals together. Let's not lose > sight that both proposals are good proposals, and that's why we have a vote. > I'm sure there are various opinions on both proposals. > > 2) Separate from either proposal, I was struck this year by a greater > diversity in topic areas for code4lib than I have observed in the past. > There definitely felt like there was interest in tracks that were not as > code-focused (such as culture / community, management, etc.). With the > conference growing to the size it has, I personally feel it might be > interesting to try a hybrid of single / multi-track, to allow those attending > an opportunity to have the ability to have some additional focus on some > theme areas. When we started code4lib, the size of the conference was such > that a single track made a lot of sense; as the event has grown, both in size > and maturity, I'd like to suggest that it may be worth exploring having both > single track sessions and multi-track sessions to allow deeper dives by > different segments of the attendees. > > Just my $.02 > > -- jaf > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Frumkin > Assistant Dean / Chief Technology Strategist University of Arizona Libraries > > +1 520.626.7296 > [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------------ > "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert > Einstein > > > > > On 2/23/15, 12:09 PM, "Riley Childs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree, the appeal of code4lib is the single track. >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> >> -- >> Riley Childs >> Senior >> Charlotte United Christian Academy >> Library Services Administrator >> IT Services Administrator >> (704) 537-0331x101 >> (704) 497-2086 >> rileychilds.net >> @rowdychildren >> I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client) >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it >> are the property of Charlotte United Christian Academy. This e-mail, >> and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the >> addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information that >> is privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If >> you are not one of the named original recipients or have received this >> e-mail in error, please permanently delete the original and any copy of >> any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your compliance. >> This email is also subject to copyright. No part of it nor any >> attachments may be reproduced, adapted, forwarded or transmitted >> without the written consent of the copyright [email protected] >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Collier, Aaron<mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: ?2/?23/?2015 2:08 PM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location >> >> In conjunction with the "distributed location" pre-conferences AND >> multi-track the proposal is not very appealing. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Fox, Bobbi >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:51 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location >> >> Is there wiggle room on the Philadelphia "multiple track" proposal, or >> do those of us who would prefer single track only have the [not]choice >> of voting for L.A.? >> >> Best regards, >> Bobbi >> >> >>>> On Feb 22, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Francis Kayiwa <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey All, >>>> >>>> Just wanted to make everyone aware of the two fantastic proposals >>>> to >>> host Code4lib 2016 that have been submitted. The cities of of Los >>> Angeles and Philadelphia have submitted proposals which are now >>> available at the official Code4lib Website >>>> >>>> http://code4lib.org/content/code4lib-2016-conference-proposals >>>> >>>> Voting will open tomorrow (UTC so probably already open if you are >>> reading this) and will remain open until 2015-03-07 08:00:00 UTC >>>> >>>> You can vote here (registration required) >>>> >>>> http://vote.code4lib.org/election/37 >>>> >>>> Thanks to the both cities for their submissions. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> Francis >>>> >>>> -- >>>> FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #13 >>>> A: Doc, Happy, Bashful, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleepy, & Grumpy >>>> Q: Who were the Democratic presidential candidates?
