Allowing for "focus" via multi-track also enables echo chambers in which people that could probably most benefit from non-code related talks never see them.

As a possible solution, we could have a post-conference afternoon on Thursday where people could meet to dig deeper into themes that occurred during the general session. Similar to what happened this year with the breakouts at the end, but with a little more emphasis and organization.

-Josh


Joshua Gomez | Sr. Software Engineer
Getty Research Institute | Los Angeles, CA
310-440-7421

>>> "Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)" <[log in to unmask]> 02/23/15 11:19 AM >>>
A couple of thoughts:

1) It takes a lot of effort to put these proposals together. Let's not
lose sight that both proposals are good proposals, and that's why we have
a vote. I'm sure there are various opinions on both proposals.

2) Separate from either proposal, I was struck this year by a greater
diversity in topic areas for code4lib than I have observed in the past.
There definitely felt like there was interest in tracks that were not as
code-focused (such as culture / community, management, etc.). With the
conference growing to the size it has, I personally feel it might be
interesting to try a hybrid of single / multi-track, to allow those
attending an opportunity to have the ability to have some additional focus
on some theme areas. When we started code4lib, the size of the conference
was such that a single track made a lot of sense; as the event has grown,
both in size and maturity, I'd like to suggest that it may be worth
exploring having both single track sessions and multi-track sessions to
allow deeper dives by different segments of the attendees.

Just my $.02

-- jaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Frumkin
Assistant Dean / Chief Technology Strategist
University of Arizona Libraries

+1 520.626.7296
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------
"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert
Einstein




On 2/23/15, 12:09 PM, "Riley Childs" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I agree, the appeal of code4lib is the single track.
>
>Sent from my Windows Phone
>
>--
>Riley Childs
>Senior
>Charlotte United Christian Academy
>Library Services Administrator
>IT Services Administrator
>(704) 537-0331x101
>(704) 497-2086
>rileychilds.net
>@rowdychildren
>I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client)
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and any files transmitted with it are
>the property of Charlotte United Christian Academy.  This e-mail, and any
>attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named
>herein and may contain confidential information that is privileged and/or
>exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not one of the
>named original recipients or have received this e-mail in error, please
>permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any
>printout thereof. Thank you for your compliance.  This email is also
>subject to copyright. No part of it nor any attachments may be
>reproduced, adapted, forwarded or transmitted without the written consent
>of the copyright [log in to unmask]
>
>________________________________
>From: Collier, Aaron<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: ?2/?23/?2015 2:08 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location
>
>In conjunction with the "distributed location" pre-conferences AND
>multi-track the proposal is not very appealing.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Fox, Bobbi
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:51 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location
>
>Is there wiggle room on the Philadelphia "multiple track" proposal, or do
>those of us who would prefer single track only have the [not]choice of
>voting for L.A.?
>
>Best regards,
>Bobbi
>
>
>> > On Feb 22, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Francis Kayiwa <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey All,
>> >
>> > Just wanted to make everyone aware of the two fantastic proposals to
>> host Code4lib 2016 that have been submitted. The cities of of Los
>> Angeles and Philadelphia have submitted proposals which are now
>> available at the official Code4lib Website
>> >
>> > http://code4lib.org/content/code4lib-2016-conference-proposals
>> >
>> > Voting will open tomorrow (UTC so probably already open if you are
>> reading this) and will remain open until 2015-03-07 08:00:00 UTC
>> >
>> > You can vote here (registration required)
>> >
>> > http://vote.code4lib.org/election/37
>> >
>> > Thanks to the both cities for their submissions.
>> >
>> > best regards,
>> > Francis
>> >
>> > --
>> > FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #13
>> > A:  Doc, Happy, Bashful, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleepy, & Grumpy
>> > Q:  Who were the Democratic presidential candidates?