LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  February 2015

CODE4LIB February 2015

Subject:

Re: Vote for Code4lib 2016 location

From:

Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:52:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (198 lines)

Even though Code4Lib is single-track, I readily admit: I do not see all of
the presentations as they're happening. (I talk to people, I nap, I do the
introvert thing and hide with a cup of tea, or whatever.) I know I'm not
the only one. And I do go back to YouTube and watch some of the ones I
missed, but I also zoom-forward through the ones that are less interesting
to me.

So I think we've got more self-selection happening, already, than we let on.

Aren't we still pretty committed to recording all of the talks (with
permission), whether we stay single-track or move to multi-track, or do
some hybrid?

I agree with the calls to be respectful and kind to both of the proposing
committees, who have put in a bunch of work and are both clearly willing to
put in a bunch more. The best way to express our opinions is by voting in
the poll: http://vote.code4lib.org/election/37, but the second-best way is
politely, respectfully, and with some serious thought as to how they might
sound to someone whose hard work and thinking we're potentially dismissing.
Re-read your messages from the perspective of both hosting committees
before you send them, please! (This probably requires reading both of the
proposal documents, by the way. :))

- Coral

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:36 PM, 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
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -----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.
>
> -Josh
>
>
> Joshua Gomez | Sr. Software Engineer
> Getty Research Institute | Los Angeles, CA
> 310-440-7421
>
> >>> "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
> >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 [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,
> >Bobbi
> >
> >
> >> > 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
> >> > 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?
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager