 |
 |
Thanks for sharing Jason. As someone who has been involved in planning a number of conferences, I can relate to the author's rant. Edward On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Jason Griffey <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Given all of the sturm und drang with this process now, and the > organizational question, this rant resonated with me: > > > http://www.rebeccamiller-webster.com/2016/06/the-realities-of-organizing-a-community-tech-conference-an-ill-advised-rant/ > > Enjoy. > > :-) > > Jason > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:20 AM Fleming, Declan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > > Sarah H Shealy > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:52 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for > > Proposals > > > > +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 > > > > > >