 |
 |
Hi All, Couple of notes on the proposal for multi-track. 1) It ain't set in stone. Much of whether or not it would happen really depends on logistics of the space, the extra costs involved, & community feedback. Right now I'd say community feedback we have heard is pretty evenly split. As a commitee we have already been reflecting on the response to multi-track so far and know that we would really need to weigh out the possible benefits (more content from more presenters) against possible drawbacks (creating silos). I also think this is an opportunity to elicit more feedback from the community about what type of content isn't at code4lib that should/could be. 2) I don't think multi-track can only be divided into "Tech" and "non-Tech" slots. Other groupings could include may be Linked Data focused, Repository focused, Public Library focused, etc. Again, those are how we would necessarily think about tracks, *if they happen* just ideas, and we'd be plenty open to other suggestions from the community. Also about Philly weather: For our colleagues in New England, the upper Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region, Philly's weather is going to feel downright balmy. :) Best, Chad On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 2:10:05 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? >