Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I like the idea of a code4lib conference franchise similar to THATCamp: http://thatcamp.org/. I happen to know that Amanda French, THATCamp Coordinator, is interested in talking with the code4lib coordinators about the distributed conference model. Her expertise on the subject would be enlightening. If you're interested, she can be contacted at i...@thatcamp.org. Jim On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, BRIAN TINGLE brian.tingle.cdlib@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 22, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Karen Schneider wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick cf...@stanford.eduwrote: +1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each institution can send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think it would help increase diversity, since it might get more people working in smaller organizations into the conference. Trying this again... +1. I'm no math major, but seems to me this would also increase the sheer number of institutions represented at the conference, another important element of diversity, so that C4L doesn't inadvertently become a gathering for a handful of institutions. 0: I've only been to code4lib twice (the first one and the last one). I'm not sure how much of an issue institutional diversity is. Local places are always going to want to send more because it is a cheaper event. And as someone from a larger institution, I have some bias. (and all of the UC is legally one institution for that matter, so would it be by UC campus? UC department? Each individual library?). I guess as long as the cap were high enough (higher than 2, maybe 5 or 10) this would probably be okay. I don't think this gets you that much as far as opening up more spots. +1 to a lottery, maybe for the last 50% of the available slots, seems like the most fair method to me. People with proposals in can land rush for the first slots. Then it is a lottery for folks who see code4lib as just another conference. +1 to selling some tickets via ircbot; by the way, I've always understood code4lib to be an irc channel with a mailing list; and the code4lib conference was like its annual meeting. I always feel guilty that I never hang out in the channel (but I spent way too much time on irc in 1992, and the thought of it sort of makes me ill). I could totally see the first batch of (of maybe 10?) tickets being distributed by irc bot at some random time. But using a bot to buy the ticket from the bot should not be allowed, real people would have to hang out on the channel to get the first spots. Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)? Just read Ross Singer's response to this. I, personally, would like to do with away with the regional brand and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location] (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the past tense, anyway). This way, there is no 'main' event. There are just events. I like that idea; sort of like THATcamp? I wonder if that would require some sort of dedicated support, like a full time program manager to help administer the conference series? Part of the appeal of the regionals is that is seems like it would be easier for volunteers to run? Or are you just talking about the branding and not the organization? Also, I do like Declan's idea: sounds like a south by south west version of code4lib? (I've never been to SXSW, so I'm probably totally wrong about this)
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On 1/11/2012 11:31 AM, Jim Safley wrote: I happen to know that Amanda French, THATCamp Coordinator, is interested in talking with the code4lib coordinators about the distributed conference model. Ah, but if you haven't figured it out yet, there pretty much are no such thing as 'code4lib coordinators'. If some people are interested in this, they should investigate, there's pretty much nobody who has authority to do it or tell you that you have authority.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
The price of admission to that event is a talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it does set a boundary. It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we should at least require a why you should let me go to Code4Lib statement or proposal. Unfortunately, this would seem (in my mind) to encourage recidivism more than anything. Newcomers are not going to have the benefit of knowing what Code4Lib is about in their statement and what is already viewed as a bit of a cliquish cabal will only likely become more so. Seems like the why part could be skipped or used in lieu of the proposal if the person feels that is more compelling than any topic they'd want to talk about on stage. As far as how to make the vetting process for proposals (for who gets to attend) practical, I suspect that simple requirement would reduce the flow enough that it might not be necessary to disappoint anyone. Rather than have a clunky voting process to potentially examine over 200 proposals (if there are more than spots), that seems to be a good job for the program committee. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
(This discussion happened a couple of weeks ago during the summer break here, but I figured it was still worth adding my couple of cents.) so, from Monday to Thursday, each day at noon Eastern, 50 registration slots open. I think this is a fantastic idea -- especially if you shift around the timeslot so that it is beneficial to people in different time zones Shifting times would be good. The registration opened at 5am here, though I probably would have gotten up for it had I known it was going to go so quickly. (Did you have to pay when you registered? If so, I don't think I could have convinced the holder of an institutional credit card to get up with me though.) I'll also +1 the suggestion for limiting attendees per organisation if the overall number is going to be kept small. David -- oʇɐʞıɐʍ ɟo ʎʇısɹǝʌıun uɐıɹɐɹqıן sɯǝʇsʎs
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM, David Friggens frigg...@waikato.ac.nz wrote: Shifting times would be good. The registration opened at 5am here, though I probably would have gotten up for it had I known it was going to go so quickly. (Did you have to pay when you registered? If so, I don't think I could have convinced the holder of an institutional credit card to get up with me though.) I'll also +1 the suggestion for limiting attendees per organisation if the overall number is going to be kept small. I think the thing that would move these ideas along is for someone to write the registration system that we're talking about (or find one that does what we want that we could repurpose). In my humble opinion, ideas that require more manual work on the part of the host(s) are less likely to happen; but, if there was a system that would do what we want (and handle the crush of registration), I think the community would happily jump behind it -- registration has always been an issue. So, that said, I'll take one step backword and let someone else step forward (by standing still) to volunteer to write it... as they say, running code wins. Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
If our bandwidth issues on campus get resolved, we'd offer our site, too. Our Valley Center for Performing Arts has a smaller theater on the lower level that could work. Exploratory site visits welcome. I may be alone on this, but I don't see low bandwidth as a dealbuster. Sharing ideas and doing work takes very little -- it's not until people start sharing large files, streaming video, and the like that it really takes much at all. Plus nowadays, bringing your internet with you is easy as well as being a good way to avoid access and policy issues. I'm not sure why it's even desirable to presume that everyone relies on the same pipe as it only increases problems if things go wrong. On the registration management issue, a few folks are putting together a conference in our neck of the woods next year. My understanding is that the price of admission will be a proposal. I find the concept attractive because the presumption is that everyone brings something to the mix and is not just there to listen People could offer an idea for a presentation, lightning talk, or whatever. It doesn't have to be great -- just something to share. I suspect that such a requirement might by itself reduce numbers enough to let everyone in. Voting or some other mechanism is used to figure out who actually has to get out in front. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the library world suffering more. Edward On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider kgschnei...@gmail.com wrote: I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there. The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's not at Code4Lib. My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket). FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond what we can make possible. We'll keep looking. Karen G. Schneider Director for Library Services Holy Names University http://library.hnu.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Seems like a hybrid system might make sense. Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it would be worth it. I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that everyone is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and also encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As with presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their reserved spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer positions guarantee the option to attend the conference. I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The people who are sitting at their computers the moment registration opens would still get in, and the people who didn't know that was required -- the newer folks whose participation is necessary for code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a reasonable chance to see, in person, what code4lib is all about. Brett Brett Bonfield Director Collingswood Public Library On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the library world suffering more. Edward On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider kgschnei...@gmail.com wrote: I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there. The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's not at Code4Lib. My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket). FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond what we can make possible. We'll keep looking. Karen G. Schneider Director for Library Services Holy Names University http://library.hnu.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Seems a reasonable suggestion to me. The tricky bit will be how to decide who's contributed substantially as a volunteer. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. Otherwise, I like the blend of first-come-first-served, guaranteed slots for folks who put in the time, and a lottery system for those who don't register for code4lib like they're trying to get free METALLICA* tickets. -Mike * Wait, are they still even around? On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:26, Brett Bonfield pace...@gmail.com wrote: Seems like a hybrid system might make sense. Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it would be worth it. I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that everyone is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and also encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As with presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their reserved spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer positions guarantee the option to attend the conference. I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The people who are sitting at their computers the moment registration opens would still get in, and the people who didn't know that was required -- the newer folks whose participation is necessary for code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a reasonable chance to see, in person, what code4lib is all about. Brett Brett Bonfield Director Collingswood Public Library On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the library world suffering more. Edward On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider kgschnei...@gmail.com wrote: I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there. The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's not at Code4Lib. My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket). FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond what we can make possible. We'll keep looking. Karen G. Schneider Director for Library Services Holy Names University http://library.hnu.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one comment.watch out for the slippery slope. There will be unintended consequences whenever you try to ensure a just registration system, be it by controlling randomness or by qualifying the participants. Where do you stop! In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to control the 250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it available to more people (be it by size increase or by video streaming, etc). True openness and fairness for registration will mean that some people will always not be able to attend, and setting up registration justice will not fix that approximately 150+ people (and more in the future) will not be able to attend no matter what. And if there is no solution to increasing participation, then so be it. It stays the same size, and registration opens at the advertised time (everyone will know when that is) and close when full. Everyone will know thatand make their plans accordingly. I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane reservations for Christmas. Some get in, some do not, and each person is responsible only to himself for doing it in time. This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two failed attempts to attend in previous years. My humble opinion only. Michael North -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, Terry Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it is so uniquely part of this community. On the one hand, you have some very creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it. On the other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves. It makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness of this community. I think people like this group because there certainly isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them. When we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good things happen (as well as some crazy things). However, there are those times when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them. The conference is a nice event. It's something I know a lot of us enjoy because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people are working on. One of the reasons it works is because of its size. It's one of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool projects. But it's certainly not the only place where this happens. And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some diversity to the registration process. I've not looked at the list fully to see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon State is one of them). A simple solution would be to limit registrations per institution, much the same way CNI does. My guess is that if registration per institution was capped, at least during the early registration period, you'd find that a much more diverse audience could attend. --TR *** Terry Reese, Associate Professor Gray Family Chair for Innovative Library Services 121 Valley Library Corvallis, OR 97331 tel: 541.737.6384 *** -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett Bonfield Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations Seems like a hybrid system might make sense. Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it would be worth it. I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that everyone is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and also encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As with presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their reserved spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer positions guarantee the option to attend the conference. I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I agree that the discussion should focus on ways of adapting the conference to serve the expanding community without losing the good qualities that come from keeping it small. This is the future, so the community is only going to get bigger. Perhaps coordinating a different regional meetup every 3 or 4 months is not a bad idea. This way, there are more options in terms of timing, it can stay small, and folks at orgs with smaller budgets can justify the lower travel costs to their managers. Of course, registration would not be closed to participants outside the region. And yes, streaming should be a priority [...signs up for video streaming/archiving team]. Presentations for each conference could even be grouped to loosely focus on certain areas of the domain -- which would draw a concentration of those interested in certain domain issues/software. One of the main draws for me to Access this year was the focus on Open Data. -Shaun On 12/22/11 11:25 AM, Michael North wrote: I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one comment.watch out for the slippery slope. There will be unintended consequences whenever you try to ensure a just registration system, be it by controlling randomness or by qualifying the participants. Where do you stop! In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to control the 250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it available to more people (be it by size increase or by video streaming, etc). True openness and fairness for registration will mean that some people will always not be able to attend, and setting up registration justice will not fix that approximately 150+ people (and more in the future) will not be able to attend no matter what. And if there is no solution to increasing participation, then so be it. It stays the same size, and registration opens at the advertised time (everyone will know when that is) and close when full. Everyone will know thatand make their plans accordingly. I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane reservations for Christmas. Some get in, some do not, and each person is responsible only to himself for doing it in time. This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two failed attempts to attend in previous years. My humble opinion only. Michael North -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, Terry Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it is so uniquely part of this community. On the one hand, you have some very creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it. On the other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves. It makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness of this community. I think people like this group because there certainly isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them. When we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good things happen (as well as some crazy things). However, there are those times when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them. The conference is a nice event. It's something I know a lot of us enjoy because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people are working on. One of the reasons it works is because of its size. It's one of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool projects. But it's certainly not the only place where this happens. And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some diversity to the registration process. I've not looked at the list fully to see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon State is one of them). A simple solution would be to limit registrations per institution, much the same way CNI does. My guess is that if registration per institution was capped, at least during the early registration period, you'd find that a much more diverse audience could attend. --TR *** Terry Reese, Associate Professor Gray Family Chair for Innovative Library Services 121 Valley Library Corvallis, OR 97331 tel: 541.737.6384 *** -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett Bonfield Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.uswrote: I could have done what others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my poor planning. Honestly... I just laughed at this scoldy Malthusian post. This is Code4Lib Insider Baseball. I wonder if anyone would have said this when C4L was founded. It presupposes so much. Among other things, that a person who would be a good fit for this conference would avidly hang on C4L's every word or movement well in advance, and understand all of the games. Then we wonder why there are so few women working in library IT, available for speaker panels, featured on important panels, blah blah blah. I feel I've been hearing what Edward said my entire working life, first in aircraft maintenance and then in libraries. The responses to my off-the-cuff suggestion on randomization are insightful. I like the new ideas flowing. But at least I have said my piece. I do like the suggestion about capping institutional attendance. It is amusing to see that institutions sending more people than work at our library. Institutional diversity would seem to be a C4L value. Speaking of C4L insider baseball, hmmm! Beat you at your own game? We just sold off a pile of card catalogs (we had to keep the shelflist, since half of our collection hasn't been converted, and it will be a while--your library's end-of-year chowder for purchasing misc stuff is my library's entire operational and personnel budget--and I speak from experience in both institutions). Perhaps we should use the proceeds to fund next year's Karen G. Schneider Scholarship (make that, The Illustrious Karen G. Schneider Scholarship for Excellence in Librarianship), for women from Newfoundland working in academic library technology in California's Bay Area, preferably those with extensive experience in LMS migrations, EZProxy, LDAP, and NCIP. I haven't had time to follow C4L very closely (q.v., Running 5-Person Library), but I did notice a thread about a specialized scholarship that would suggest this might be acceptable. Although, of course, there will be a reason that I should have understood that it really isn't acceptable. As noted before, our AD for Lib Tech would love a good tech conference in the next six months. She has ERL (her first), but would like something geekier. We appreciate the spirit of the start your own C4L, and you do have to ask, why doesn't the Bay Area have one? But--and I've worked in the big places with the cushy padding, so I am aware that when you work in aforesaid places, you really don't understand where we are--that's not feasible at present; she's taken on something else important and external and that's about it for the next 18 mo, given an overflowing plate. Recommendations welcome. Enjoy C4L. Thank you for a community [followed by a qualified 'sic'] where one can speak one's mind. That is all. Karen G. Schneider schnei...@hnu.edu Former C4L Attendee Former C4L Keynoter Former C4L Keynoter Who Survived Socially-Awkward Hecklers Inspiration for C4L Sarge
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick cf...@stanford.eduwrote: +1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each institution can send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think it would help increase diversity, since it might get more people working in smaller organizations into the conference. Trying this again... +1. I'm no math major, but seems to me this would also increase the sheer number of institutions represented at the conference, another important element of diversity, so that C4L doesn't inadvertently become a gathering for a handful of institutions. K.G. Schneider
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On 22 Dec 2011, at 18:20, Reese, Terry wrote: This way, there is no 'main' event. There are just events. Deep. *Nods, enlightened.* John Kirriemuir Agent Librarian http://www.wordshore.com/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier. To me, the best way to solve the problem is to simply have more conferences. I, personally, would like to do with away with the regional brand and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location] (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the past tense, anyway). This way, there is no 'main' event. There are just events. And I'd wager that our national events are largely attended by folks who live in the host's region. 'Course I could be wrong. I would support THATCampizing code4lib in such a way; in fact, we're moving CURATEcamp towards the same model. +1 -Mike
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Actually, my sense from last year's meeting, with significant contingents from Europe and Japan, is that code4lib has become an international conference. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Michael J. Giarlo leftw...@alumni.rutgers.edu wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier. To me, the best way to solve the problem is to simply have more conferences. I, personally, would like to do with away with the regional brand and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location] (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the past tense, anyway). This way, there is no 'main' event. There are just events. And I'd wager that our national events are largely attended by folks who live in the host's region. 'Course I could be wrong. I would support THATCampizing code4lib in such a way; in fact, we're moving CURATEcamp towards the same model. +1 -Mike -- Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design Development Knowledge Access Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)? +1 If our bandwidth issues on campus get resolved, we'd offer our site, too. Our Valley Center for Performing Arts has a smaller theater on the lower level that could work. Exploratory site visits welcome. Karen G. Schneider Holy Names University
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Salvete! I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what One predetermined registration window of epicly tiny proportion is simply Amerocentric. 3AM where you are? OCLC says TDB! Cheers, Brooke
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Seriously, gang...as soon as we get this new library built, I'm all-in for C4L-Chattanooga. I'll provide the venue, just wait until Fall 2013. Jason On Dec 22, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Kevin S. Clarke kscla...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Reese, Terry terry.re...@oregonstate.edu wrote: Sounds like Ross just volunteered to start a C4L Chattanooga...everyone meet up at Ross's house. :) Woot! Getting in the car now... Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
+1 Peter Noerr MuseGlobal -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Schneider Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:11 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)? +1 If our bandwidth issues on campus get resolved, we'd offer our site, too. Our Valley Center for Performing Arts has a smaller theater on the lower level that could work. Exploratory site visits welcome. Karen G. Schneider Holy Names University
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
If only we could all be as lucky as Dmitri. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDIBKxh-5No --jay On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Nordstrom, Kurt kurt.nordst...@unt.edu wrote: I suggested that all registration for C4L should go through zoia. If you don't know who zoia is, maybe you should learn more about the C4L community before queuing for a conference spot. ;) -Kurt From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Fleming, Declan [dflem...@ucsd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:34 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations Hiya - ya know what the cheapest, most inclusive part of code4lib is? The IRC channel. I know it's old school, and one more thing to learn, but drop in and toss an idea around. I've found it very rewarding. D
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Hi - I know you're probably trying to be funny, but this kinda reads like an insider vs outsider comment. Why erect barriers when we don't need them? Depending on one's opinion, zoia is a chat bot in the IRC channel that provides feedback and hooks to outside systems - OR - it's an annoying waste of IRC window real estate ;) D -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Nordstrom, Kurt Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:46 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations I suggested that all registration for C4L should go through zoia. If you don't know who zoia is, maybe you should learn more about the C4L community before queuing for a conference spot. ;) -Kurt From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Fleming, Declan [dflem...@ucsd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:34 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations Hiya - ya know what the cheapest, most inclusive part of code4lib is? The IRC channel. I know it's old school, and one more thing to learn, but drop in and toss an idea around. I've found it very rewarding. D
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there. The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's not at Code4Lib. My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket). FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond what we can make possible. We'll keep looking. Karen G. Schneider Director for Library Services Holy Names University http://library.hnu.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I suggested that all registration for C4L should go through zoia. If you don't know who zoia is, maybe you should learn more about the C4L community before queuing for a conference spot. ;) -Kurt From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Fleming, Declan [dflem...@ucsd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:34 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations Hiya - ya know what the cheapest, most inclusive part of code4lib is? The IRC channel. I know it's old school, and one more thing to learn, but drop in and toss an idea around. I've found it very rewarding. D
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I had planned to come to code4lib and knew it filled up fast. I joined the mailing list so I could find out about the registration as soon as it happened. It came out in mid-morning and I happened to be in a meeting until 12 or so and by the time I tried to register it was sold out. This is annoying. Why not find a venue that is big enough to meet the obvious demand? There are surely plenty of larger venues in a city such as Seattle. The actual time when registration was going to open was published in a variety of venues (on the wiki, on the mailing lists, and it seemed someone was asking the question every fifteen minutes in the channel, including me ;) ). I purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time and rescheduled some that were. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a proposal for a larger code4lib and I imagine Minnesota has lots of places that can host a larger one. The deadline isn't until Jan. 22nd See http://code4lib.org/node/425 As always, if you want Code4Lib to do something or change, all you have to do is plan and work for it. That's why we're a loose collective and not a professional organization. I personally would not vote on making it much larger. It seems every order of magnitude increase takes it away from the techie origins and more like CiL or Internet Librarian. On the other hand, regardless of the size, I still suspect I'll find people willing to discuss the technical stuff, I just might stop showing up for most of the actual talks. Jon Gorman. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Elfstrand, Stephen F stephen.elfstr...@mnsu.edu wrote: Stephen Elfstrand PALS Executive Director stephen.elfstr...@mnsu.edu 507.389.5059
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Salvete! Not sure the bigger is worse dictum holds. Do Code4Libbers suddenly get trolly when you have more of them about? Sure, a larger conference is a different experience, but I wonder if what the organisational toll is for not honouring folks' frustration in being left out in the cold. Are people willing to give it a go once, or will the nerds just take their USB drives and their lappies and go home? ;) Cheers, Brooke
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to host. Being involved with a conference that attracts 500+ people, I can tell yo that it is a lot different then a 200 or 250 person conference to plan. If C4L did get much bigger, I would very likely take my USB drives and [my] lappies and go home. Still, if a larger conference is what everyone else wanted, that would be fine with me but I very well might miss my first C4L in that case. Personally, I'd rather see it smaller. As far as a solution: I think the solution is to host more regional C4L conferences like the New England people have been discussing. Edward
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to host. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons that Code4Lib capacity has always been so low is to make it easier to keep as a single track (which, personally, I feel is pretty important to maintain). While, certainly, we could probably get a venue with a larger single-room seating capacity (Providence could have probably easily seated 700+ if it had been arranged like Portland), we quickly begin to lose any sense of intimacy. 250 people is a gathering, 500+ is a crowd. To boot, we'd basically be pushing the exclusive wall from the registration process to the breakout and lightning talk signups. The lottery idea sounds intriguing, but complicated. It would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, I think. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote: One of the founding concepts of the conference had been no spectators. That is, everyone has an opportunity to participate and is encouraged to do so. I'm not saying we need to limit the conference to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of this concept with some regret. This makes a lot of sense -- I didn't realize that, even as someone who's been around the outskirts of the community for several years now. It doesn't, however, particularly support the current size limit. Signed up promptly isn't necessarily a good predictor of participates actively. But I agree. Just making the conference bigger without thought to its purpose -- especially WRT local c4l miniconferences -- risks changing the conference while bringing to more people. Which may kind of miss the point. -n
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
My honest opinion is that we should get closer to this model. I think that even 250 is larger than optimum. For a couple years, I ran DrupalCon, which in five years grew from just over 30 folks to a North American event with about 3,000 and a European event with almost 1,800. Originally, DrupalCon had a lot more in common with Code4Lib. It has one track and focused on making the software better. Now, that aspect of DrupalCon, while collocated, is almost a separate event. The price of admission to that event is a talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it does set a boundary. It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we should at least require a why you should let me go to Code4Lib statement or proposal. The gatekeepers could read these and figure out how to get a mix of folks who would make the best conference. The downside would be hurt feelings, and the only way to mitigate that would be to have very clear procedures, even if names and hats were part of it. Cary On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote: One of the founding concepts of the conference had been no spectators. That is, everyone has an opportunity to participate and is encouraged to do so. I'm not saying we need to limit the conference to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of this concept with some regret. The more C4L becomes like every other conference the less it is the kind of unique event it was created to be. But perhaps the group has grown to the point where only regional events can have that flavor, and the annual conference becomes something qualitatively different, which in some ways it already has. It would be good if we went into this with our eyes wide open, and with some forethought, rather than stumbling into it by default. That is, if we can't handle a participatory conference of 300 and above, how can we re-envision participation? Can we offer some virtual venues for participation? I don't have answers at this point, just questions. But it seems clear that we've hit the point where something has to give. Roy On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to host. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons that Code4Lib capacity has always been so low is to make it easier to keep as a single track (which, personally, I feel is pretty important to maintain). While, certainly, we could probably get a venue with a larger single-room seating capacity (Providence could have probably easily seated 700+ if it had been arranged like Portland), we quickly begin to lose any sense of intimacy. 250 people is a gathering, 500+ is a crowd. To boot, we'd basically be pushing the exclusive wall from the registration process to the breakout and lightning talk signups. The lottery idea sounds intriguing, but complicated. It would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, I think. -Ross. -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com wrote: My honest opinion is that we should get closer to this model. I think that even 250 is larger than optimum. For a couple years, I ran DrupalCon, which in five years grew from just over 30 folks to a North American event with about 3,000 and a European event with almost 1,800. Originally, DrupalCon had a lot more in common with Code4Lib. It has one track and focused on making the software better. Now, that aspect of DrupalCon, while collocated, is almost a separate event. The price of admission to that event is a talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it does set a boundary. It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we should at least require a why you should let me go to Code4Lib statement or proposal. The gatekeepers could read these and figure out how to get a mix of folks who would make the best conference. The downside would be hurt feelings, and the only way to mitigate that would be to have very clear procedures, even if names and hats were part of it. Unfortunately, this would seem (in my mind) to encourage recidivism more than anything. Newcomers are not going to have the benefit of knowing what Code4Lib is about in their statement and what is already viewed as a bit of a cliquish cabal will only likely become more so. -Ross. Cary On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote: One of the founding concepts of the conference had been no spectators. That is, everyone has an opportunity to participate and is encouraged to do so. I'm not saying we need to limit the conference to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of this concept with some regret. The more C4L becomes like every other conference the less it is the kind of unique event it was created to be. But perhaps the group has grown to the point where only regional events can have that flavor, and the annual conference becomes something qualitatively different, which in some ways it already has. It would be good if we went into this with our eyes wide open, and with some forethought, rather than stumbling into it by default. That is, if we can't handle a participatory conference of 300 and above, how can we re-envision participation? Can we offer some virtual venues for participation? I don't have answers at this point, just questions. But it seems clear that we've hit the point where something has to give. Roy On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to host. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons that Code4Lib capacity has always been so low is to make it easier to keep as a single track (which, personally, I feel is pretty important to maintain). While, certainly, we could probably get a venue with a larger single-room seating capacity (Providence could have probably easily seated 700+ if it had been arranged like Portland), we quickly begin to lose any sense of intimacy. 250 people is a gathering, 500+ is a crowd. To boot, we'd basically be pushing the exclusive wall from the registration process to the breakout and lightning talk signups. The lottery idea sounds intriguing, but complicated. It would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, I think. -Ross. -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
David Fiander wrote: so, from Monday to Thursday, each day at noon Eastern, 50 registration slots open. I think this is a fantastic idea -- especially if you shift around the timeslot so that it is beneficial to people in different time zones. E.g. newly Eastern Monday, noon Central Tuesday, etc. I've seen this work very well in other distributed communities. As a side benefit, it reduces server load. Well, until the final day. -Deborah
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
Roy Tennant wrote: I'm not saying we need to limit the conference to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of this concept with some regret. The more C4L becomes like every other conference the less it is the kind of unique event it was created to be. There is always a trade-off between comfortably small and exclusivity. Regional meetings will find it easier to be comfortably small, but they do tend towards not having the opportunity to meet new people. When a group finds a really successful way of sharing information within a professional community, a larger pool of people will want to participate. This is a good thing, for all it has costs. The tricky part for the old guard to do is how do you manage preserving as much of the original vibe as you can while not putting up a wall that keeps out scary strangers. It's hard work, but not impossible. People have proposed lots of potential solutions in this conversation: say there is no problem and we like it the way it is; lottery for a single conference; different registration times for a single conference; one large and many regional conferences; shrink the current conference even further. All of them have pros and cons. As long as people are willing to talk through them and be willing to change, the conference will probably be the stronger for it. -Deborah -- Deborah Kaplan Digital Resources Archivist Digital Collections and Archives Tufts University
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 14:05, Kaplan, Deborah deborah.kap...@tufts.edu wrote: The tricky part for the old guard to do is how do you manage preserving as much of the original vibe as you can while not putting up a wall that keeps out scary strangers. It's hard work, but not impossible. People have proposed lots of potential solutions in this conversation: say there is no problem and we like it the way it is; lottery for a single conference; different registration times for a single conference; one large and many regional conferences; shrink the current conference even further. All of them have pros and cons. As long as people are willing to talk through them and be willing to change, the conference will probably be the stronger for it. Well said, Deborah. I'd love if we had one or more hosting proposals for #c4l13 that suggest tinkering with, or scrapping, the formula. Otherwise this thread will end the way many of our threads do, by fading into a series of bacon and OCLC jokes, which are then rehashed year after year. Though I've thoroughly enjoyed all six code4lib conferences, I can appreciate folks' arguments for change. I will say that I think we've done a decent job at not putting up a wall that keeps out scary strangers -- it's unscientific, but the opening show of hands the past few years has shown that we continue to attract many dozens of newcomers every year. -Mike
Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
I don't know that folks would need to what Code4Lib is about in the sense that they know what Code4Lib has been about or used to be about. They very well might dream up an about that is more about us than we have ever been. BTW, some of my best friends and role models are scary strangers. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com wrote: My honest opinion is that we should get closer to this model. I think that even 250 is larger than optimum. For a couple years, I ran DrupalCon, which in five years grew from just over 30 folks to a North American event with about 3,000 and a European event with almost 1,800. Originally, DrupalCon had a lot more in common with Code4Lib. It has one track and focused on making the software better. Now, that aspect of DrupalCon, while collocated, is almost a separate event. The price of admission to that event is a talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it does set a boundary. It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we should at least require a why you should let me go to Code4Lib statement or proposal. The gatekeepers could read these and figure out how to get a mix of folks who would make the best conference. The downside would be hurt feelings, and the only way to mitigate that would be to have very clear procedures, even if names and hats were part of it. Unfortunately, this would seem (in my mind) to encourage recidivism more than anything. Newcomers are not going to have the benefit of knowing what Code4Lib is about in their statement and what is already viewed as a bit of a cliquish cabal will only likely become more so. -Ross. Cary On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote: One of the founding concepts of the conference had been no spectators. That is, everyone has an opportunity to participate and is encouraged to do so. I'm not saying we need to limit the conference to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of this concept with some regret. The more C4L becomes like every other conference the less it is the kind of unique event it was created to be. But perhaps the group has grown to the point where only regional events can have that flavor, and the annual conference becomes something qualitatively different, which in some ways it already has. It would be good if we went into this with our eyes wide open, and with some forethought, rather than stumbling into it by default. That is, if we can't handle a participatory conference of 300 and above, how can we re-envision participation? Can we offer some virtual venues for participation? I don't have answers at this point, just questions. But it seems clear that we've hit the point where something has to give. Roy On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote: I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to host. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons that Code4Lib capacity has always been so low is to make it easier to keep as a single track (which, personally, I feel is pretty important to maintain). While, certainly, we could probably get a venue with a larger single-room seating capacity (Providence could have probably easily seated 700+ if it had been arranged like Portland), we quickly begin to lose any sense of intimacy. 250 people is a gathering, 500+ is a crowd. To boot, we'd basically be pushing the exclusive wall from the registration process to the breakout and lightning talk signups. The lottery idea sounds intriguing, but complicated. It would have to be pretty well thought out in advance, I think. -Ross. -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
