 |
 |
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Michael J. Giarlo wrote: > Should be long enough after C4LN and between Access conferences so as > not to interfere. > > I'd encourage the Vancouver contingent to put forward its proposal; if > it gets the most votes, the community has spoken. I agree about putting forward the proposal, and the voting, and not conflicting with C4LN, but not about Access. I have a few concerns about the idea of code4libcon in Vancouver. When the vote comes, though, if it's the only option, well, there we'll be. Just to air said concerns... maybe this should be on the conf list but the thread's here, so, whatever. (a) I don't want to have to choose between code4lib and Access and if they're both in Canada I might have to choose; Access would win. This concern is one of the reasons we didn't try a code4libcon before 2006, though maybe the number of us who share this concern is small. (b) of the five code4libcons we've had, the ones that have been the most fun to me have been the ones in smaller towns (corvallis, athens, asheville) where we're more likely to stumble into other attendees as the evening... uh... "progresses". Vancouver would be the biggest host city yet. It's a great town and I'd love to return there but it's not small by any measure. (c) in early years we emphasized keeping code4libcon cheap and have continued to succeed at that by using sponsorships to keep the registration fee low. It's good to be able to draw in students and people who are interested but not directly supported or who might choose to go on their own dime. These past two years the conf hotel rate has crept up some, with a good block rate but still well over $100/night. Vancouver's a more expensive town than any we've been in before, so I'd worry we'd be shutting some people out. I think there's been some kind of lower cost hotel or hostel option in every town, and surely there would be in Vancouver, but in a bigger town that means people are spread out more and then my concern (b) gets amplified, too. All that said, it's not like I'm putting in a hosting proposal, so, right, go VANOC^H^HC4LC! -Dan p.s. if we could try out a "lightning talk cross" session where four people talk all at the same time, i'm in for sure.