My honest opinion is that we should get closer to this model. I think
that even 250 is larger than optimum.

For a couple years, I ran DrupalCon, which in five years grew from
just over 30 folks to a North American event with about 3,000 and a
European event with almost 1,800. Originally, DrupalCon had a lot more
in common with Code4Lib. It has one track and focused on making the
software better. Now, that aspect of DrupalCon, while collocated, is
almost a separate event. The price of admission to that event is a
talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it
does set a boundary.

It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we
should at least require a "why you should let me go to Code4Lib"
statement or proposal. The gatekeepers could read these and figure out
how to get a mix of folks who would make the best conference. The
downside would be hurt feelings, and the only way to mitigate that
would be to have very clear procedures, even if names and hats were
part of it.

Cary

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com