We're voting on the content of the proposals given. I don't think anyone really believes everything is set in stone for anything except that there are 2 very dedicated groups willing to put on a conference in their respective cities. There are probably more people voting for one or the other based on $$$ and transportation than multi/single track. It's not really about the minutia of the conference, it's the locations themselves. Sarah
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:48:58 +0000 > From: christina.sala...@csuci.edu > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > > I think I see what you're saying - it's not really the location of the > conference that we're voting on: it's the location plus the capability of the > planners to put on a conference, plus whatever the plans that have been > outlined in the case that those plans HAVE in fact been outlined and > COMMITTED to. > > My concern though is that we'd be voting on too many different aspects of the > conference itself simultaneously and some of it unknown and subject to change > in any case. Being on the LA proposal group, I don't think we committed to a > single track, especially since Josh offered other options here on this list. > We are in fact open to changing this part based on what people are interested > in here. I'd hate for people to think Philly = multi track, LA = single. So > in truth we're not really VOTING on that aspect in any case (discussing is > another matter). > > So what I really meant to say originally is it'd be good to know what we're > voting ON (does that make any of what I'm trying to say less obnoxious? Equal > was certainly a poor choice of words and not what I'd actually intended) but > I would argue that in fact we STILL REALLY don't know what we're voting on > because it's subject to the discretion of the planning committee as they see > fit in planning the conference and based on community feedback now and in the > near future. > > Christina Salazar > Systems Librarian > John Spoor Broome Library > California State University, Channel Islands > 805/437-3198 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Esmé > Cowles > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:45 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > > I think now is exactly the right time to talk about this -- when we have > multiple hosting proposals to choose from. Adding some multi-track sessions, > like making the conference significantly larger, is controversial, and people > can vote based on that. > > I am also torn between different factors (weather, trying some multi-track > sessions, travel considerations, etc.), but that's always the case when > deciding on hosting proposals. > > -Esme > > > On 02/23/15, at 11:36 AM, Salazar, Christina <christina.sala...@csuci.edu> > > wrote: > > > > What Josh said: > > > > In a multi-track, you are forced to choose and never get to see what is > > going on in the areas that you've been forced to opt out of. Which I think > > would be a shame since some of the "non-technical" talks really NEED to be > > heard by those who are there purely for the "tech." > > > > I do think someone from Philly needs to answer the original question: can > > they put on a single track conference if that's what the community wants. > > It will make a difference it seems, in the vote. > > > > Then if BOTH LA and Philly can do single track (or multitrack or some other > > permutation) we can vote on each city as equals. > > > > This way we don't need to debate the merits of single or multitrack at the > > same time as we're debating the merits of LA versus Philly. > > > > > > Christina Salazar > > Systems Librarian > > John Spoor Broome Library > > California State University, Channel Islands > > 805/437-3198 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf > > Of Joshua Gomez > > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:31 AM > > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > > > > Allowing for "focus" via multi-track also enables echo chambers in which > > people that could probably most benefit from non-code related talks never > > see them. > > > > As a possible solution, we could have a post-conference afternoon on > > Thursday where people could meet to dig deeper into themes that occurred > > during the general session. Similar to what happened this year with the > > breakouts at the end, but with a little more emphasis and organization. > > > > -Josh > > > > > > Joshua Gomez | Sr. Software Engineer > > Getty Research Institute | Los Angeles, CA > > 310-440-7421 > > > >>>> "Frumkin, Jeremy A - (frumkinj)" <frumk...@email.arizona.edu> > >>>> 02/23/15 11:19 AM >>> > > 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 > > j...@arizona.edu > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert > > Einstein > > > > > > > > > > On 2/23/15, 12:09 PM, "Riley Childs" <rchi...@cucawarriors.com> 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 ow...@cucawarriors.com > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Collier, Aaron<mailto:acoll...@calstate.edu> > >> Sent: ?2/?23/?2015 2:08 PM > >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> > >> 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:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf > >> Of Fox, Bobbi > >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:51 AM > >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > >> 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 <kay...@pobox.com> 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?
