 |
 |
Given what I remember just from the work it took for the program committee to do our little section I cannot imagine a local planning committee pulling it off in less time than Brian has outlined, and it is probably tricky to do it even in that time-frame. Thanks Brian and the Chattanooga folks for providing a good outline to move forward. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I support the timeline proposed by Brian. > > Edward > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Sarah H Shealy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> I think the timeline provided by Brian is reasonable. >> >> >> But it's TN, not NC. >> >> >> Sarah >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jonathan >> Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:38:27 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for >> Proposals >> >> I wouldn't have even done a vote at all -- I think when we vote on >> conference hosts, we are choosing people to steward the conference and make >> sure it happens, as good as it can be using their judgement for what that >> looks like and how to make it happen. The fact that the NC folks are >> attempting to make sure the torch can get passed instead of just throwing >> up their hands and saying "it's back at you, community, we're no longer >> involved" shows that stewardship was well-placed. I think it would have >> been totally appropriate for them to simply pass the torch. >> >> But if votes are going to happen, they need to happen as quickly as >> possible if you want the conf to actually come off, at least in the >> spring. How is "7 days after a credible proposal that includes financial >> backing" not an "arbitrary deadline"? Are you willing to wait forever for >> such a "credible proposal" to show up? Who decides if it's "credible"? >> Once a proposal shows up, anyone else that was trying to work on a proposal >> now has exactly 7 days to get one in, but they had no idea what their >> deadline was until the first proposal showed up, which hopefully they >> noticed on the email list so they know what their deadline is now? Or only >> the first proposal to get in gets a yes/no vote, and anyone else doesn't >> get included in the vote, first to get the proposal to email wins? >> >> There are a bunch of different ways it could be done, but calendar dates >> are important for an orderly process, and speedy calendar dates are >> important for the conf to actually happen, and I think nitpicking and >> arguing over the process the NC folks have chosen is pointless, they were >> entrusted to steward the thing, the process they've come up with is >> reasonable, just go with it. >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > I think that we should avoid arbitrary limits such as a July 1st >> deadline. >> > We should open up any credible proposal that includes financial backing >> to >> > discussion and a vote closing seven days after the proposal is posted to >> > this list. >> > >> > Cary >> > >> > > On Jun 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Brian Rogers <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Greetings once more from the Chattanooga Local Planning Committee - >> > > >> > > We come with another update regarding the annual Code4Lib conference. >> > After the announcement of our survey, two other groups immediately >> reached >> > out about the possibility of hosting the conference. Of those two, the >> one >> > that is the most confident about being able to secure a fiscal host and >> > still pull off everything within the existing timeframe, is the LA-based >> > C4L-SoCal. We spoke with three of their members earlier in the week - >> Gary >> > Thompson, Christina Salazar, and Joshua Gomez. After discussion, we >> > collectively envision a collaboration between the two groups, given the >> > effort, energy and commitment the Chattanooga group has already invested. >> > The LA group would handle more of the venue and local arrangements, with >> > the Chattanooga group helping spearhead other planning elements. >> > > >> > > Thus, the idea is to host the annual conference in the greater LA area. >> > > >> > > However, even though Chattanooga's proposal was the only one put forth >> > for next year, since this suggestion does reflect a significant change, >> and >> > because LA is still working on securing a fiscal host, we are proposing >> to >> > the community the following: >> > > >> > > - Since a handful of individuals came forth w/alternative cities >> > subsequent to my last update, any group who now wishes to put forth a >> > proposal, do so by July 1st. >> > > - Given the specter of timecrunch, we ask anyone, including LA, who >> > would put forth another city, to only do so with written confirmation of >> a >> > fiscal host by that same deadline. >> > > - If more than one city has put forth a proposal and secured a fiscal >> > host within that window of time, we will put it to a community vote, with >> > polls being left up through July 15th. >> > > >> > > As always, comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for all the >> existing >> > feedback, dialogue, various offers people have come forth with, and the >> > patience while we try to wrangle up a physical home for 2017. >> > > >> > > - Brian Rogers >> > >>