Even though Code4Lib is single-track, I readily admit: I do not see all of
the presentations as they're happening. (I talk to people, I nap, I do the
introvert thing and hide with a cup of tea, or whatever.) I know I'm not
the only one. And I do go back to YouTube and watch some of the ones I
missed, but I also zoom-forward through the ones that are less interesting
to me.
So I think we've got more self-selection happening, already, than we let on.
Aren't we still pretty committed to recording all of the talks (with
permission), whether we stay single-track or move to multi-track, or do
some hybrid?
I agree with the calls to be respectful and kind to both of the proposing
committees, who have put in a bunch of work and are both clearly willing to
put in a bunch more. The best way to express our opinions is by voting in
the poll: http://vote.code4lib.org/election/37, but the second-best way is
politely, respectfully, and with some serious thought as to how they might
sound to someone whose hard work and thinking we're potentially dismissing.
Re-read your messages from the perspective of both hosting committees
before you send them, please! (This probably requires reading both of the
proposal documents, by the way. :))
- Coral
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Salazar, Christina <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What Josh said:
>
> In a multi-track, you are forced to choose and never get to see what is
> going on in the areas that you've been forced to opt out of. Which I think
> would be a shame since some of the "non-technical" talks really NEED to be
> heard by those who are there purely for the "tech."
>
> I do think someone from Philly needs to answer the original question: can
> they put on a single track conference if that's what the community wants.
> It will make a difference it seems, in the vote.
>
> Then if BOTH LA and Philly can do single track (or multitrack or some
> other permutation) we can vote on each city as equals.
>
> This way we don't need to debate the merits of single or multitrack at the
> same time as we're debating the merits of LA versus Philly.
>
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Joshua Gomez
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location
>
> 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?
>
|
