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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado
> <[log in to unmask]> 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.
|
