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  June 2011

CODE4LIB June 2011

Subject:

Re: Code4Lib 2012 Seattle Update.

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:41:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

On 6/14/2011 4:00 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
>> ....  Or maybe the conf has gotten more expensive such that we need more
>> money and thus more incentive to sponsor. (First priority -- try to keep the
>> conf from getting more expensive so this doesn't happen)....
>
> Costs can be kept down by securing sponsorships, reducing what is provided,
> and/or by increasing registration fees. The reality is that people have
> gotten accustomed to major costs of c4l effectively being subsidized. Space
> and bandwidth are very expensive and when these are generously provided at
> low or no cost, it makes c4l look much cheaper than it is.

So what I'm curious about, is how did the first 3-4 Code4Lib's manage to 
happen in a way that satisfied us, had low conf registration, and had 
lower sponsorship contributions and lower sponsor privileges than it is 
suggested is now required?

Apparently our _expenses_ (not registration fees, but the overall 
expense column on the conf) have gone up. What happened?  Is it that the 
conf is providing more than it used to be?  If so, does the community 
want a more full-featured conf that has increased sponsorship, or 
instead a conf like it used to be?

Or have the expenses of putting on a conf gone up for reasons other than 
increased services?  Maybe more stuff used to be done by volunteers that 
now needs to be paid for?  I don't know.

Or is something else going on? Maybe the expenses haven't gone up, but 
instead it's harder to get the level of sponsorship we had at those 
first few confs, without giving them more privileges then we did at 
those first few confs?

Basically, what I don't understand is how 'we' managed to do 3-5 conf's 
with low registration fees, and sponsorships that could be acquired by 
only offering limited sponsorship exposure -- but now we can't anymore. 
What has changed?


> I don't think that's a barrier to funding. Those who help make things
> possible deserve recognition whether their domain name ends in .com, .edu,
> or whatever and recognition doesn't imply content control. Anyone interested
> in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome. Vendor
> participation done properly benefits attendees and vendors alike, so we
> should be able to find some common ground.

I'm not talking about whether their name ends in .com, .edu, or whatever.

I'm saying I don't like the idea that someone gets time in front of the 
conf because they paid money, rather then because it was decided upon by 
our usual community process (voting on proposals etc).  Anyone 
interested in sharing their knowledge and learning should be welcome, 
but they should not get 20 minutes or an hour in front of a captive 
audience becuase they paid money, rather than becuase the community 
collectively decided we wanted to hear the content, through our usual 
means.   I don't think I'm alone in not liking that.  If this has not 
been neccesary before, what's changed?


It's worth pointing out that vendor's get plenty of benefit (as do all 
other participants) when they simply register their staff in the usual 
way, and the staff comes to the conf as an attendee, presents in the 
usual way (if accepted, or lightning), talk to people over meals and in 
hallways, etc.  We've always had vendor staff participation like this, 
it is indeed good thing (for the vendors exposure, and for the rest of 
us having them there to exchange info with), and I don't expect it would 
stop if we didn't have any sponsors at all. What is at issue isn't 
vendor 'participation', it's sponsorship, how much we need, and what we 
need to offer to get it.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager