 |
 |
Easy solution : dance off. Everyone puts a youtube video up and the community votes on who has the best moves. The top 250 get a ticket. You're welcome. On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Ross Singer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> My honest opinion is that we should get closer to this model. I think >> that even 250 is larger than optimum. >> >> For a couple years, I ran DrupalCon, which in five years grew from >> just over 30 folks to a North American event with about 3,000 and a >> European event with almost 1,800. Originally, DrupalCon had a lot more >> in common with Code4Lib. It has one track and focused on making the >> software better. Now, that aspect of DrupalCon, while collocated, is >> almost a separate event. The price of admission to that event is a >> talk proposal, and while perhaps obviously, not everyone speaks, it >> does set a boundary. >> >> It might be tough to find folks to serve as gatekeepers, but maybe we >> should at least require a "why you should let me go to Code4Lib" >> statement or proposal. The gatekeepers could read these and figure out >> how to get a mix of folks who would make the best conference. The >> downside would be hurt feelings, and the only way to mitigate that >> would be to have very clear procedures, even if names and hats were >> part of it. >> > Unfortunately, this would seem (in my mind) to encourage recidivism > more than anything. Newcomers are not going to have the benefit of > knowing "what Code4Lib is about" in their statement and what is > already viewed as a bit of a cliquish cabal will only likely become > more so. > > -Ross. > >> Cary >> >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> One of the founding concepts of the conference had been "no >>> spectators". That is, everyone has an opportunity to participate and >>> is encouraged to do so. I'm not saying we need to limit the conference >>> to 80 seats or so, but I think we should at least mark the passing of >>> this concept with some regret. The more C4L becomes like every other >>> conference the less it is the kind of unique event it was created to >>> be. >>> >>> But perhaps the group has grown to the point where only regional >>> events can have that flavor, and the annual conference becomes >>> something qualitatively different, which in some ways it already has. >>> It would be good if we went into this with our eyes wide open, and >>> with some forethought, rather than stumbling into it by default. That >>> is, if we can't handle a participatory conference of 300 and above, >>> how can we re-envision participation? Can we offer some virtual venues >>> for participation? I don't have answers at this point, just questions. >>> But it seems clear that we've hit the point where something has to >>> give. >>> Roy >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Edward M. Corrado >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> I would be against making C4L any bigger. There are already bigger >>>>> conferences one can attend to. Not only because it will lose the feel, >>>>> but it will become more expensive, limit locations, and harder to >>>>> host. >>>> >>>> One thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons that Code4Lib >>>> capacity has always been so low is to make it easier to keep as a >>>> single track (which, personally, I feel is pretty important to >>>> maintain). >>>> >>>> While, certainly, we could probably get a venue with a larger >>>> single-room seating capacity (Providence could have probably easily >>>> seated 700+ if it had been arranged like Portland), we quickly begin >>>> to lose any sense of intimacy. 250 people is a gathering, 500+ is a >>>> crowd. >>>> >>>> To boot, we'd basically be pushing the exclusive wall from the >>>> registration process to the breakout and lightning talk signups. >>>> >>>> The lottery idea sounds intriguing, but complicated. It would have to >>>> be pretty well thought out in advance, I think. >>>> >>>> -Ross. >> >> >> >> -- >> Cary Gordon >> The Cherry Hill Company >> http://chillco.com