 |
 |
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? >