On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Susan Kane wrote:

[trimmed]

> You could repeat the conference at a totally different time of year ...
> everyone who didn't get in is automatically registered for the second
> conference later that year ... kinda wacky but ...
> 
> You could plan for a second conference of the same size in the same city
> (different hotel).  After presentations for C4L1 are finalized, presenters
> are sought on similar topics for C4L2.  Overflow registrations for C4L1
> automatically go to C4L2.  Similar content means that institutions who paid
> for you to come to learn about X will hopefully not be upset if you learn
> about X from a different person across the street.  Everyone hangs out
> informally during off-presentation times.
> 
> One could call that "tracks" but I'm trying for more of a "mirror download
> site" concept.

[trimmed]

For some reason, this jogged my memory --

The DC-IA (Information Architecture) group used to hold an meeting
after the IA Summit to basically recap what was discussed at the IA
Summit.  (I think they called it the 'IA Redux')

As there was more than one track, it allowed people who did go to
the summit to hear more about the other presentations they missed,
and for those who didn't go at all, it gave them a chance to at least
hear second-hand what was discussed.

Obviously, it wasn't nearly as complete as the original, and lost some
in translation, but I found it to be informative.

Particularly when you consider the proposal to limit the number of
attendees from one organization, this means that you spread the
number of attendees out, who can then spread the gospel to the others
that weren't able to attend.

Now, I'm not saying that people have to go out and take copious notes
and then try to get them into some format for dissemination (I did that
for the last RDAP meeting ... it's a lot of work trying to get 'em into a
format that others might understand), but if you get a few people
together who were at the meeting, and they can talk about what they
thought was interesting (possibly referring to notes they might've
jotted down), and that often spurs interesting discussions in itself.

-Joe

ps.  as an example of understandability, compare:
	http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_notes.txt
	http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_report.html
(and I took the original notes by hand, not typed, so I was spending
my nights at the meeting typing, then making 'em understandable for
the next week or so)