Speaking from my own experience, I have almost always used the breakouts
blocks to decompress and do anything else but conferencey stuff. Including
going back to my room to take a nap. By that point in the day, Iım so
wiped out and overloaded with ideas that the last thing I want to do is
pull people together to talk about it more. Maybe itıs an
introvert/extrovert thing, but Iım not sure that adding more
breakouts/time for breakouts solves the problem.
In practice, Iıve pretty much always used the dinners to accomplish what
breakouts seem to do for others.
-Sean
On 2/23/15, 2:22 PM, "Schwartz, Raymond" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I definitely feel it is time for a hybrid. My thoughts: How about an
>hour's worth of breakouts sessions each day? One idea.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:18 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location
>
>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?
|
