That is a  valid point Jeremy. Thank you ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location

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
>Charlotte United Christian Academy
>Library Services Administrator
>IT Services Administrator
>(704) 537-0331x101
>(704) 497-2086
>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,
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks to the both cities for their submissions.
>> >
>> > best regards,
>> > Francis
>> >
>> > --
>> > A:  Doc, Happy, Bashful, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleepy, & Grumpy
>> > Q:  Who were the Democratic presidential candidates?