On Dec 22, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Karen Schneider wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> +1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each
>> institution can send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think
>> it would help increase diversity, since it might get more people working in
>> smaller organizations into the conference.
>> 
> 
> Trying this again... +1. I'm no math major, but seems to me this would also
> increase the sheer number of institutions represented at the conference,
> another important element of diversity, so that C4L doesn't inadvertently
> become a gathering for a handful of institutions.
> 

0:  I've only been to code4lib twice (the first one and the last one).  I'm not sure how much of an issue institutional diversity is.  Local places are always going to want to send more because it is a cheaper event.  And as someone from a larger institution, I have some bias. (and all of the UC is legally one institution for that matter, so would it be by UC campus?  UC department?  Each individual library?).  I guess as long as the cap were high enough (higher than 2, maybe 5 or 10) this would probably be okay.  I don't think this gets you that much as far as opening up more spots. 

+1 to a lottery, maybe for the last 50% of the available slots, seems like the most fair method to me.  People with proposals in can land rush for the first slots.  Then it is a lottery for folks who see code4lib as just another conference.

+1 to selling some tickets via ircbot; by the way, I've always understood code4lib to be an irc channel with a mailing list; and the code4lib conference was like its annual meeting.  I always feel guilty that I never hang out in the channel (but I spent way too much time on irc in 1992, and the thought of it sort of makes me ill).  I could totally see the first batch of (of maybe 10?) tickets being distributed by irc bot at some random time.  But using a bot to buy the ticket from the bot should not be allowed, real people would have to hang out on the channel to get the first spots.

Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)?

Just read Ross Singer's response to this.
> I, personally, would like to do with away with the
> "regional" "brand" and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location]
> (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the
> past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are
> just events.

I like that idea; sort of like THATcamp?  I wonder if that would require some sort of dedicated support, like a full time program manager to help administer the conference series?  Part of the appeal of the regionals is that is seems like it would be easier for volunteers to run?  Or are you just talking about the branding and not the organization?


Also, I do like Declan's idea: sounds like a south by south west version of code4lib?  (I've never been to SXSW, so I'm probably totally wrong about this)