Thanks for sharing Jason. As someone who has been involved in planning a
number of conferences, I can relate to the author's rant.

Edward

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Jason Griffey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Given all of the sturm und drang with this process now, and the
> organizational question, this rant resonated with me:
>
>
> http://www.rebeccamiller-webster.com/2016/06/the-realities-of-organizing-a-community-tech-conference-an-ill-advised-rant/
>
> Enjoy.
>
> :-)
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:20 AM Fleming, Declan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Sarah H Shealy
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:52 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for
> > Proposals
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > I think the timeline provided by Brian is reasonable.
> >
> >
> > But it's TN, not NC.
> >
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Jonathan
> > Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:38:27 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for
> > Proposals
> >
> > I wouldn't have even done a vote at all -- I think when we vote on
> > conference hosts, we are choosing people to steward the conference and
> make
> > sure it happens, as good as it can be using their judgement for what that
> > looks like and how to make it happen.  The fact that the NC folks are
> > attempting to make sure the torch can get passed instead of just throwing
> > up their hands and saying "it's back at you, community, we're no longer
> > involved" shows that stewardship was well-placed. I think it would have
> > been totally appropriate for them to simply pass the torch.
> >
> > But if votes are going to happen, they need to happen as quickly as
> > possible if you want the conf to actually come off, at least in the
> > spring.  How is "7 days after a credible proposal that includes financial
> > backing" not an "arbitrary deadline"?  Are you willing to wait forever
> for
> > such a "credible proposal" to show up? Who decides if it's "credible"?
> > Once a proposal shows up, anyone else that was trying to work on a
> > proposal now has exactly 7 days to get one in, but they had no idea what
> > their deadline was until the first proposal showed up, which hopefully
> they
> > noticed on the email list so they know what their deadline is now?  Or
> only
> > the first proposal to get in gets a yes/no vote, and anyone else doesn't
> > get included in the vote, first to get the proposal to email wins?
> >
> > There are a bunch of different ways it could be done, but calendar dates
> > are important for an orderly process, and speedy calendar dates are
> > important for the conf to actually happen, and I think nitpicking and
> > arguing over the process the NC folks have chosen is pointless, they were
> > entrusted to steward the thing, the process they've come up with is
> > reasonable, just go with it.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that we should avoid arbitrary limits such as a July 1st
> > deadline.
> > > We should open up any credible proposal that includes financial
> > > backing to discussion and a vote closing seven days after the proposal
> > > is posted to this list.
> > >
> > > Cary
> > >
> > > > On Jun 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Brian Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greetings once more from the Chattanooga Local Planning Committee -
> > > >
> > > > We come with another update regarding the annual Code4Lib conference.
> > > After the announcement of our survey, two other groups immediately
> > > reached out about the possibility of hosting the conference. Of those
> > > two, the one that is the most confident about being able to secure a
> > > fiscal host and still pull off everything within the existing
> > > timeframe, is the LA-based C4L-SoCal. We spoke with three of their
> > > members earlier in the week - Gary Thompson, Christina Salazar, and
> > > Joshua Gomez. After discussion, we collectively envision a
> > > collaboration between the two groups, given the effort, energy and
> > commitment the Chattanooga group has already invested.
> > > The LA group would handle more of the venue and local arrangements,
> > > with the Chattanooga group helping spearhead other planning elements.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the idea is to host the annual conference in the greater LA
> area.
> > > >
> > > > However, even though Chattanooga's proposal was the only one put
> > > > forth
> > > for next year, since this suggestion does reflect a significant
> > > change, and because LA is still working on securing a fiscal host, we
> > > are proposing to the community the following:
> > > >
> > > > - Since a handful of individuals came forth w/alternative cities
> > > subsequent to my last update, any group who now wishes to put forth a
> > > proposal, do so by July 1st.
> > > > - Given the specter of timecrunch, we ask anyone, including LA, who
> > > would put forth another city, to only do so with written confirmation
> > > of a fiscal host by that same deadline.
> > > > - If more than one city has put forth a proposal and secured a
> > > > fiscal
> > > host within that window of time, we will put it to a community vote,
> > > with polls being left up through July 15th.
> > > >
> > > > As always, comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for all the
> > > > existing
> > > feedback, dialogue, various offers people have come forth with, and
> > > the patience while we try to wrangle up a physical home for 2017.
> > > >
> > > > - Brian Rogers
> > >
> >
>