 |
 |
Having recently read both proposals, my only concern is that SLA is in Philadelphia in 2016. I like traveling east, but twice to Philadelphia within 6 months of each other is a bit much for me. I realize not everyone is in SLA, or coming from the west, just wanted to point it out. I do like the multi-track idea, and do appreciate an organization spreading annual conferences around the country. Perhaps 2016 just isn't my year (which is fine, too). .m On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Sarah Shealy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > There are definitely amazing points in both proposals. Either way it goes > C4L is going to be awesome in 2016. > Everyone has a different motivation on voting, and think we should keep > that in mind. Two years running on the west coast might be more than some > can afford. Some may have personal reasons for preferring LA (or can't > afford to travel east). Other people may feel super strongly about the > Philly beer selection. Or have personal ties to the locations that may be > used in LA. > On the subject of single vs multi-track, I'd say that I would have *loved* > a break from the way-over-my-head-and-super-technical single track just for > an hour or 2. But that doesn't mean it *should* be that way - I think it > could vary from year to year based on proposals. There's no reason not to > have a single-track year followed my a hybrid followed by a single-track > year. That's one of the beauties of C4L. > > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:18:19 +0000 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > 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? > >