With this survey, we are gathering important information for the 2021
Code4Lib Local Planning Committee (LPC). This survey will *inform* the 2021
organizers' decisions, but the survey results will *not* automatically lock
in a final decision on the 2021 conference's format.
As time has crawled since our 2019 conference, it became apparent that we
need more information to better serve our Code4Lib community when moving
forward during this extremely improvisational time. The 2020 LPC committee
and the folks from Concentra have been apart of this conversation in
formulating this survey. We checked with the University of Buffalo,
University Libraries group and they are generously willing to organize the
2021 Code4Lib conference even if it was fully remote.
Details such as if and how smaller in-person gatherings/viewings would
happen, and the logistics of a fully remote conference would be decided
later in the Code4Lib planning committees. We don't have all the answers
now, as comforting as it would be, but things will become clearer in time.
In the meantime, we're hoping to give the 2021 Code4Lib LPC as much help as
we can with this survey.
Sponsorship Committee, Chair
Code4Lib 2020 - Pittsburgh, PA
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:51 PM Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think that we should bring Jenn from Concentra into this discussion. She
> is dealing with this for other conferences.
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:09 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Wow...this is a big question, isn't it? We're trying to speculate now
> > whether large, in-person meetings will be possible in Spring 2021. I'm an
> > optimistic person by nature; that said, I'm not confident that
> > meetings of more than 20 people are going to be possible. And if a
> > face-to-face meeting were to happen, it would probably still have
> > significant social distancing requirements and perhaps health screening
> > needs. Would organizations allow people to travel? There would probably
> > a significant percentage of remote participation. (We handled that well
> > March, but this is at another new scale.)
> > I see that the ballot has an online option (although the Buffalo proposal
> > site doesn't have a description of this). Might we discuss a hybrid
> > where there are local sites of less than 15 people (as well as single
> > remote users, of course) that are coordinated and em cee'd out of a
> > "head end"?
> > Should we discuss this on the list some more before voting? Or see how
> > this round of voting pans out?
> > Peter
> > On May 8, 2020, 12:35 PM -0400, Kenneth L Rose <[log in to unmask]>,
> > wrote:
> > > Dear Code4Lib Community,
> > >
> > > We are mindful that these are unprecedent and uncertain times as we all
> > try to navigate the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic. With
> > being said, the 2020 planning committee bears the responsibility of
> > the torch to the next Local Planning Committee. Please see the link below
> > for the survey for 2021 hosting options. The University of Buffalo,
> > University Libraries is the only group that has submitted a proposal for
> > Code4Lib 2021. They have submitted 4 options and we added a virtual only
> > option.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We appreciate your feedback.
> > >
> > > Code4Lib 2020 planning Committee