 |
 |
Speaking from my own experience, I have almost always used the breakouts blocks to decompress and do anything else but conferencey stuff. Including going back to my room to take a nap. By that point in the day, Iım so wiped out and overloaded with ideas that the last thing I want to do is pull people together to talk about it more. Maybe itıs an introvert/extrovert thing, but Iım not sure that adding more breakouts/time for breakouts solves the problem. In practice, Iıve pretty much always used the dinners to accomplish what breakouts seem to do for others. -Sean On 2/23/15, 2:22 PM, "Schwartz, Raymond" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I definitely feel it is time for a hybrid. My thoughts: How about an >hour's worth of breakouts sessions each day? One idea. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj) >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:18 PM >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 >>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?