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.
> On 02/23/15, at 11:36 AM, Salazar, Christina <[log in to unmask]> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joshua Gomez
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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.
> Joshua Gomez | Sr. Software Engineer
> Getty Research Institute | Los Angeles, CA
>>>> "Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> 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
> [log in to unmask]
> "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
> On 2/23/15, 12:09 PM, "Riley Childs" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I agree, the appeal of code4lib is the single track.
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> Riley Childs
>> Charlotte United Christian Academy
>> Library Services Administrator
>> IT Services Administrator
>> (704) 537-0331x101
>> (704) 497-2086
>> 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 [log in to unmask]
>> From: Collier, Aaron<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: ?2/?23/?2015 2:08 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Fox, Bobbi
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:51 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> 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,
>>>> On Feb 22, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Francis Kayiwa <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Hey All,
>>>> Just wanted to make everyone aware of the two fantastic proposals
>>> 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
>>>> 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)
>>>> Thanks to the both cities for their submissions.
>>>> best regards,
>>>> FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #13
>>>> A: Doc, Happy, Bashful, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleepy, & Grumpy
>>>> Q: Who were the Democratic presidential candidates?