Hi All,

Couple of notes on the proposal for multi-track.

1) It ain't set in stone.  Much of whether or not it would happen really
depends on logistics of the space, the extra costs involved, & community
feedback. Right now I'd say community feedback we have heard is pretty
evenly split.

As a commitee we have already been reflecting on the response to
multi-track so far and know that we would really need to weigh out the
possible benefits (more content from more presenters) against possible
drawbacks (creating silos). I also think this is an opportunity to elicit
more feedback from the community about what type of content isn't at
code4lib that should/could be.

2) I don't think multi-track can only be divided into "Tech"  and
"non-Tech" slots. Other groupings could include may be Linked Data focused,
Repository focused, Public Library focused, etc. Again, those are how we
would necessarily think about tracks, *if they happen* just ideas, and we'd
be plenty open to other suggestions from the community.

Also about Philly weather:
For our colleagues in New England, the upper Midwest and the Rocky Mountain
region, Philly's weather is going to feel downright balmy. :)

Best,
Chad

On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 2:10:05 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?
>