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  November 2012

CODE4LIB November 2012

Subject:

From:

Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:50:43 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

I think that is a reasonable number, but I also think that the entire
process needs review and (more) discussion.

Thanks,

Cary

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Speaking from the program committee perspective, we went through the proposals that were voted into the conference by the community and made sure there was each presenter was at the podium for only one presentation. There was one case where we asked someone who was voted in for a solo presentation and also a joint presentation to relinquish one spot, which happened.
>
> It does make sense to reserve a percentage of slots for first-time Code4Lib presenters. 15% sounds like a good number to experiment with for next year. Are there any objections from the community for doing that?  (Do we need to find a way to formalize consensus in the group?)
>
>
> Peter
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:27 PM, "Roy Tennant" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I also think it is a good idea to reserve a certain number/percentage of
>> speaking slots to first-time presenters. I also want to bring up (again)
>> the issue of presenters presenting more than once. We are looking at a
>> conference with 400 attendees -- 400! How can we justify having anyone on
>> the podium more than once? I mean, seriously?
>>
>> I think we need to realize that we have grown to the point that we need
>> more management than we have in the past. Remember that we also still have
>> open-ended slots for lightning talks and breakouts. It isn't like I'm
>> calling for the kind of strictness that ALA imposes.
>> Roy
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Edward M Corrado <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> I am not thrilled with the idea of anonymous proposals as I think that
>>> goes against the openness non-organization that is code4lib. Also based on
>>> the numbers posted earlier it seems inputs are more of an issue then the
>>> voting.
>>>
>>> However, I love the idea of X number of presentations reserved for first
>>> time presenters. I don't know what the value of X should be but Bess's idea
>>> of 15% sounds good to me.
>>>
>>> I'd personally also like to see a limit to the number of talks someone can
>>> give or propose, but I know this has been brought up before and, at least
>>> in the past, there was not overwhelming support for this.
>>>
>>> Edward
>>>
>>> --
>>> Edward M. Corrado
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 18:41, Bess Sadler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not volunteering to write the voting mechanism for this, but what
>>> if we had two rounds of voting?
>>>>
>>>> 1. First round, anonymous (people who follow these things avidly would
>>> of course have read everyone's names on the wiki, but I think for most
>>> people not having the names listed means you have removed the names from
>>> consideration). We use the current system of assigning points. Once you've
>>> cast that ballot, then you get ballot 2:
>>>>
>>>> 2. The same ballot with the names present. You now have the opportunity
>>> to change your vote, if you want to. It might be because you didn't realize
>>> that person who secretly bores you was one of the speakers. It might be
>>> because what at first looked like just another talk about marc software
>>> sounds more compelling if its from someone who's never spoken before.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we might also set aside a separate competition for first
>>> time speakers? Say, 15% of the talks? Assuming that generally speaking,
>>> offering ways for early-career folks or those new to public speaking to
>>> participate is a good thing and would benefit diversity as a bonus.
>>>>
>>>> Bess
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll second the idea of approaching people individually and explicitly
>>> asking them to participate. It worked on me. I never would have written my
>>> first article for the Code4Lib Journal or become a member of the editorial
>>> committee if someone hadn't encouraged me individually (Thanks Jonathan!).
>>>>>
>>>>> It would also be good to find a way to somehow target the pool of
>>> lurkers who maybe aren't already connected to someone and get them more
>>> involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as anonymous proposals go, we recently had a very good workshop
>>> on implicit bias here. Someone brought up that found significant changes in
>>> the gender proportions in symphony orchestras after candidates started
>>> auditioning behind screens. There are also lots of studies about the
>>> different responses to the same resume/application depending on whether a
>>> stereotypically male/female or white/black name was used. Probably it's
>>> impossible to make proposals completely anonymous, but it would be an
>>> interesting experiment to leave off the names.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kelley
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Interestingly, I wouldn't instinctively self-identify as a member of
>>> the Code4Lib community, although my first thought is that that has more to
>>> do with not being a coder than with being a woman.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **************************
>>>>> Kelley McGrath
>>>>> Metadata Management Librarian
>>>>> University of Oregon Libraries
>>>>> 1299 University of Oregon
>>>>> Eugene, OR 97403
>>>>>
>>>>> 541-346-8232
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>



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

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
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