Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Peter Noerr]

+1

Peter Noerr
MuseGlobal

> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen 
> Schneider
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:11 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
> 
> >
> > Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For
> > Libraries Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)?
> >
> 
> +1
> 
> If our bandwidth issues on campus get resolved, we'd offer our site, too.
> Our Valley Center for Performing Arts has a smaller theater on the lower 
> level that could work.
> Exploratory site visits welcome.
> 
> Karen G. Schneider
> Holy Names University

[CODE4LIB] T-shirt contest winner

[Ann Lally]

Sean Hannan from Johns Hopkins University is the winner of the Code4Lib
2012 t-shirt design contest! The voting was VERY close, but in the end,
Sean pulled ahead and came out the winner.
To see the winning design please visit:
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/C4l2012_t-shirtcontest

Congratulations Sean!

Angie Beiriger and Ann Lally
T-shirt Committee

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Walter Lewis]

On 2011-12-22, at 1:55 PM, Peter Noerr wrote:

> Crazy variation number 3. Have two tracks which are identical, but time 
> shifted by half a day (or some other convenient unit). The presenters talk 
> twice on the same day - in the morning for track A and the afternoon for 
> track B. That way there is no "speaker gulag", no time over-run (though, 
> following Declan's point, how much time is left out of the week after 
> travelling, so why not the whole week), and you get a chance to hear a really 
> interesting presentation twice - or miss it twice! 

One of the things I've always enjoyed about single track conferences like 
Code4Lib and Access is that when you are speaking you don't miss all the other 
great (and more often than not, greater) presentations happening in other rooms 
while you're talking about stuff you already know.  It might be different for 
some folks, but for some of us giving a presentation is *mostly* an excuse to 
get our employers to release us from other duties and fund travel and the 
opportunity to learn.  

Walter

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Jason Griffey]

Seriously, gang...as soon as we get this new library built, I'm all-in for 
C4L-Chattanooga. I'll provide the venue, just wait until Fall 2013. 

Jason

On Dec 22, 2011, at 1:38 PM, "Kevin S. Clarke"  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Reese, Terry
>  wrote:
>> Sounds like Ross just volunteered to start a C4L Chattanooga...everyone meet 
>> up at Ross's house.  :)
> 
> Woot!  Getting in the car now...
> 
> Kevin

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[BWS Johnson]

Salvete!


> I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time
> is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan
> accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I
> registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially
> on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting
> locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what

    One predetermined registration window of epicly tiny proportion is simply 
Amerocentric. 3AM where you are? OCLC says TDB!

Cheers,
Brooke

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Karen Schneider]

>
> And streaming to a "satellite" meeting, say here in the Bay, area where
> 10-15-20 people could get together informally gives them a chance to
> interact amongst themselves, if not the whole group. (OK, that is crazy
> idea #4
>
> Peter
>
>
+1. The IRC channel would be a further real-time bond with the Mother Ship.

Karen G. Schneider
Holy Names University

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Karen Schneider]

>
> Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries
> Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)?
>

+1

If our bandwidth issues on campus get resolved, we'd offer our site, too.
Our Valley Center for Performing Arts has a smaller theater on the lower
level that could work. Exploratory site visits welcome.

Karen G. Schneider
Holy Names University

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Daniel Lovins]

Actually, my sense from last year's meeting, with significant
contingents from Europe and Japan, is that code4lib has become an
international conference.



On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Michael J. Giarlo
 wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer  wrote:
>>
>> This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier.  To me,
>> the best way to "solve" the problem is to simply have more
>> conferences.  I, personally, would like to do with away with the
>> "regional" "brand" and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location]
>> (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the
>> past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are
>> just events.
>>
>
> And I'd wager that our "national" events are largely attended by folks
> who live in the host's region.  'Course I could be wrong.
>
> I would support THATCampizing code4lib in such a way; in fact, we're
> moving CURATEcamp towards the same model.
>
> +1
>
> -Mike



-- 
Daniel Lovins
Head of Knowledge Access, Design & Development
Knowledge Access & Resource Management Services
New York University, Division of Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
daniel.lov...@nyu.edu
212-998-2489

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[BRIAN TINGLE]

On Dec 22, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Karen Schneider wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
>> +1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each
>> institution can send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think
>> it would help increase diversity, since it might get more people working in
>> smaller organizations into the conference.
>> 
> 
> Trying this again... +1. I'm no math major, but seems to me this would also
> increase the sheer number of institutions represented at the conference,
> another important element of diversity, so that C4L doesn't inadvertently
> become a gathering for a handful of institutions.
> 

0:  I've only been to code4lib twice (the first one and the last one).  I'm not 
sure how much of an issue institutional diversity is.  Local places are always 
going to want to send more because it is a cheaper event.  And as someone from 
a larger institution, I have some bias. (and all of the UC is legally one 
institution for that matter, so would it be by UC campus?  UC department?  Each 
individual library?).  I guess as long as the cap were high enough (higher than 
2, maybe 5 or 10) this would probably be okay.  I don't think this gets you 
that much as far as opening up more spots. 

+1 to a lottery, maybe for the last 50% of the available slots, seems like the 
most fair method to me.  People with proposals in can land rush for the first 
slots.  Then it is a lottery for folks who see code4lib as just another 
conference.

+1 to selling some tickets via ircbot; by the way, I've always understood 
code4lib to be an irc channel with a mailing list; and the code4lib conference 
was like its annual meeting.  I always feel guilty that I never hang out in the 
channel (but I spent way too much time on irc in 1992, and the thought of it 
sort of makes me ill).  I could totally see the first batch of (of maybe 10?) 
tickets being distributed by irc bot at some random time.  But using a bot to 
buy the ticket from the bot should not be allowed, real people would have to 
hang out on the channel to get the first spots.

Also, is there any interest in a San Francisco Bay Area Code For Libraries 
Regional Affiliate (code4lib-sfbay for short)?

Just read Ross Singer's response to this.
> I, personally, would like to do with away with the
> "regional" "brand" and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location]
> (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the
> past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are
> just events.

I like that idea; sort of like THATcamp?  I wonder if that would require some 
sort of dedicated support, like a full time program manager to help administer 
the conference series?  Part of the appeal of the regionals is that is seems 
like it would be easier for volunteers to run?  Or are you just talking about 
the branding and not the organization?


Also, I do like Declan's idea: sounds like a south by south west version of 
code4lib?  (I've never been to SXSW, so I'm probably totally wrong about this)

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Peter Noerr]

Crazy variation number 3. Have two tracks which are identical, but time shifted 
by half a day (or some other convenient unit). The presenters talk twice on the 
same day - in the morning for track A and the afternoon for track B. That way 
there is no "speaker gulag", no time over-run (though, following Declan's 
point, how much time is left out of the week after travelling, so why not the 
whole week), and you get a chance to hear a really interesting presentation 
twice - or miss it twice! Yes the interactions would be different (I would hope 
so), but that may be an advantage. Questions can be asked that got the time 
chop previously, more details can be added the second time round, attendees 
have more to compare over lunch/beer. The problem would be a heard following 
one presentation so we have 500 in one and only 3 in the other. Room size 
limits (enforced) could help relieve that, or labeling people to their track 
and only allowing/encouraging mixing at "intermediate events".

And streaming to a "satellite" meeting, say here in the Bay, area where 
10-15-20 people could get together informally gives them a chance to interact 
amongst themselves, if not the whole group. (OK, that is crazy idea #4

Peter

> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Corey 
> A Harper
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:44 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration 
> limitations
> 
> Cary,
> 
> Good to know about your extensive experience w/ streaming.
> 
> If you'll be in Seattle, would you be willing to add your name to the "Video 
> Committee" listing?
> http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page#Video_Committee
> 
> Having people who actually know what they're doing involved in this effort 
> *this* year will help
> ensure that we're actually able to pull it off as effectively as IU did...
> 
> Thanks,
> -Corey
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Cary Gordon  wrote:
> > This is definitely doable, and potentially effective for a single
> > track conference.
> >
> > I have been doing streaming as a volunteer for eight years and it
> > keeps getting easier.
> >
> > Cary
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Wilfred Drew  wrote:
> >> Here is another crazy idea; stream the event live for those who can't get 
> >> registered for the pace
> to face version and provide a lower registration fee for them.
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Wilfred (Bill) Drew, M.S., B.S., A.S.
> >> Assistant Professor
> >> Librarian, Systems and Tech Services/Electronic Resources/Serials
> >> Tompkins Cortland Community College  (TC3) Library:
> >> http://www.tc3.edu/library/
> >> Dryden, N.Y. 13053-0139
> >> Follow the library: http://twitter.com/TC3Library
> >> E-mail: dr...@tc3.edu
> >> Phone: 607-844-8222 ext.4406
> >> SKYPE/Twitter:BillDrew4
> >> SMS/TXT Me: 6072182217
> >> Website: http://BillTheLibrarian.com
> >> StrengthsQuest Strengths: Ideation, Input, Learner, Command,
> >> Analytical http://www.facebook.com/billdrew "One thing about eBooks
> >> that most people haven't thought much is that eBooks are the very
> >> first thing that we're all able to have as much as we want other than 
> >> air." -- Michael Hart,
> Project Gutenberg PPlease consider the environment before printing this 
> e-mail or document.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cary Gordon
> > The Cherry Hill Company
> > http://chillco.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Corey A Harper
> Metadata Services Librarian
> New York University Libraries
> 20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
> New York, NY 10003-7112
> 212.998.2479
> corey.har...@nyu.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Michael J. Giarlo]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer  wrote:
>
> This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier.  To me,
> the best way to "solve" the problem is to simply have more
> conferences.  I, personally, would like to do with away with the
> "regional" "brand" and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location]
> (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the
> past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are
> just events.
>

And I'd wager that our "national" events are largely attended by folks
who live in the host's region.  'Course I could be wrong.

I would support THATCampizing code4lib in such a way; in fact, we're
moving CURATEcamp towards the same model.

+1

-Mike

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Kevin S. Clarke]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Reese, Terry
 wrote:
> Sounds like Ross just volunteered to start a C4L Chattanooga...everyone meet 
> up at Ross's house.  :)

Woot!  Getting in the car now...

Kevin

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[John Kirriemuir]

On 22 Dec 2011, at 18:20, Reese, Terry wrote:


 This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are just events.


Deep. *Nods, enlightened.*


John Kirriemuir
Agent Librarian
http://www.wordshore.com/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Reese, Terry]

Sounds like Ross just volunteered to start a C4L Chattanooga...everyone meet up 
at Ross's house.  :)

--TR

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross 
Singer
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:16 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:
> I agree that the discussion should focus on ways of adapting the 
> conference to serve the expanding community without losing the good 
> qualities that come from keeping it small.  This is the future, so the 
> community is only going to get bigger.
>
> Perhaps coordinating a different regional meetup every 3 or 4 months 
> is not a bad idea.  This way, there are more options in terms of 
> timing, it can stay small, and folks at orgs with smaller budgets can 
> justify the lower travel costs to their managers.  Of course, 
> registration would not be closed to participants outside the region.  
> And yes, streaming should be a priority [...signs up for video 
> streaming/archiving team].
>
> Presentations for each conference could even be grouped to loosely 
> focus on certain areas of the domain -- which would draw a 
> concentration of those interested in certain domain issues/software.  
> One of the main draws for me to Access this year was the focus on Open Data.
>

This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier.  To me, the best 
way to "solve" the problem is to simply have more conferences.  I, personally, 
would like to do with away with the "regional" "brand" and just call everything 
by Code4Lib [Location] (which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' 
conference in the past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  
There are just events.

Now, whether they break down around certain topics or whatnot - that's the 
choice of the host.

One of the problems I have with the "regional" theme, is that it becomes far 
more unfeasible the further south and west you go (until you hit California, 
but there are a lot of people in fly over country) simply because the distances 
to get the number of people needed to justify the effort expands dramatically.

So, for me, in Chattanooga, it's unlikely that I'd attend a Code4Lib MidWest 
Regional in Illinois, but (depending on the program) I'd definitely consider 
Code4Lib Urbana-Champaign (or Chicago or South Bend or Grand Rapids or 
whatever) even if it's more or less the same thing.

I think higher frequency of events would also take a lot of pressure off each 
individual to raise the stakes each time.

-Ross.

> -Shaun
>
>
>
> On 12/22/11 11:25 AM, Michael North wrote:
>>
>> I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one 
>> comment."watch out for the slippery slope."
>>
>> There will be "unintended consequences" whenever you try to ensure a 
>> "just" registration system, be it by controlling "randomness" or by 
>> "qualifying" the participants.  Where do you stop!
>>
>> In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on 
>> how to control the 250 registration slots, we should focus on how to 
>> make it available to more people (be it by size increase or by video 
>> streaming, etc).  True openness and fairness for registration will 
>> mean that some people  will always not be able to attend, and setting 
>> up registration "justice" will not fix that approximately 150+ 
>> people (and more in the
>> future) will not be able to attend no matter what.   And if there is 
>> no solution to increasing participation, then so be it.  It stays the 
>> same size, and registration opens at the advertised time (everyone 
>> will know when that is) and close when full.  Everyone will know 
>> thatand make their plans accordingly.
>>
>> I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane 
>> reservations for Christmas.  Some get in, some do not, and each 
>> person is responsible only to himself for doing it "in time."
>>
>> This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two 
>> failed attempts to attend in previous years.
>> My humble opinion only.
>> Michael North
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
>> Of Reese, Terry
>> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
>>
>> I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion 
>> because it is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, 
>> you have some very creative people that think that they see a problem 
>> and want to fix it.  On the other, people are spinning their wheels, 
>> throwing out the crazies solutions trying to solve a problem that we 
>> as the community have created ourselves.  It makes me smile because 
>> it really does personify both the strengths and weakness of this 
>> 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Ross Singer]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:
> I agree that the discussion should focus on ways of adapting the conference
> to serve the expanding community without losing the good qualities that come
> from keeping it small.  This is the future, so the community is only going
> to get bigger.
>
> Perhaps coordinating a different regional meetup every 3 or 4 months is not
> a bad idea.  This way, there are more options in terms of timing, it can
> stay small, and folks at orgs with smaller budgets can justify the lower
> travel costs to their managers.  Of course, registration would not be closed
> to participants outside the region.  And yes, streaming should be a priority
> [...signs up for video streaming/archiving team].
>
> Presentations for each conference could even be grouped to loosely focus on
> certain areas of the domain -- which would draw a concentration of those
> interested in certain domain issues/software.  One of the main draws for me
> to Access this year was the focus on Open Data.
>

This fits in well with something I was thinking about earlier.  To me,
the best way to "solve" the problem is to simply have more
conferences.  I, personally, would like to do with away with the
"regional" "brand" and just call everything by Code4Lib [Location]
(which is pretty much how we refer to any 'main' conference in the
past tense, anyway).  This way, there is no 'main' event.  There are
just events.

Now, whether they break down around certain topics or whatnot - that's
the choice of the host.

One of the problems I have with the "regional" theme, is that it
becomes far more unfeasible the further south and west you go (until
you hit California, but there are a lot of people in fly over country)
simply because the distances to get the number of people needed to
justify the effort expands dramatically.

So, for me, in Chattanooga, it's unlikely that I'd attend a Code4Lib
MidWest Regional in Illinois, but (depending on the program) I'd
definitely consider Code4Lib Urbana-Champaign (or Chicago or South
Bend or Grand Rapids or whatever) even if it's more or less the same
thing.

I think higher frequency of events would also take a lot of pressure
off each individual to raise the stakes each time.

-Ross.

> -Shaun
>
>
>
> On 12/22/11 11:25 AM, Michael North wrote:
>>
>> I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one
>> comment."watch out for the slippery slope."
>>
>> There will be "unintended consequences" whenever you try to ensure a
>> "just" registration system, be it by controlling "randomness" or by
>> "qualifying" the participants.  Where do you stop!
>>
>> In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to
>> control the 250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it
>> available to more people (be it by size increase or by video streaming,
>> etc).  True openness and fairness for registration will mean that some
>> people  will always not be able to attend, and setting up registration
>> "justice" will not fix that approximately 150+ people (and more in the
>> future) will not be able to attend no matter what.   And if there is no
>> solution to increasing participation, then so be it.  It stays the same
>> size, and registration opens at the advertised time (everyone will know when
>> that is) and close when full.  Everyone will know thatand make their
>> plans accordingly.
>>
>> I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane
>> reservations for Christmas.  Some get in, some do not, and each person is
>> responsible only to himself for doing it "in time."
>>
>> This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two
>> failed attempts to attend in previous years.
>> My humble opinion only.
>> Michael North
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
>> Reese, Terry
>> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
>>
>> I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion
>> because it is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have
>> some very creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix
>> it.  On the other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the
>> crazies solutions trying to solve a problem that we as the community have
>> created ourselves.  It makes me smile because it really does personify both
>> the strengths and weakness of this community.  I think people like this
>> group because there certainly isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to
>> spend time and energy on them.  When we put that energy towards coding and
>> solving problems in libraries -- good things happen (as well as some crazy
>> things).  However, there are those times when it feels like things go off
>> the rails and to me, this is one of them.
>>
>> The conference is a n

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Karen Schneider]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick wrote:

> +1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each
> institution can send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think
> it would help increase diversity, since it might get more people working in
> smaller organizations into the conference.
>

Trying this again... +1. I'm no math major, but seems to me this would also
increase the sheer number of institutions represented at the conference,
another important element of diversity, so that C4L doesn't inadvertently
become a gathering for a handful of institutions.

K.G. Schneider

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Chris Fitzpatrick]

+1 for Terry's idea of limiting the number of participants each institution can 
send. I don't know what this number would be, but I think it would help 
increase diversity, since it might get more people working in smaller 
organizations into the conference. 



On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Reese, Terry wrote:

> I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because 
> it is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have some 
> very creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it.  
> On the other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies 
> solutions trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created 
> ourselves.  It makes me smile because it really does personify both the 
> strengths and weakness of this community.  I think people like this group 
> because there certainly isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time 
> and energy on them.  When we put that energy towards coding and solving 
> problems in libraries -- good things happen (as well as some crazy things).  
> However, there are those times when it feels like things go off the rails and 
> to me, this is one of them.  
> 
> The conference is a nice event.  It's something I know a lot of us enjoy 
> because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people 
> are working on.  One of the reasons it works is because of its size.  It's 
> one of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the 
> attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool 
> projects.  But it's certainly not the only place where this happens.  
> 
> And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some 
> diversity to the registration process.  I've not looked at the list fully to 
> see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are 
> sending large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, 
> because Oregon State is one of them).  A simple solution would be to limit 
> registrations per institution, much the same way CNI does.  My guess is that 
> if registration per institution was capped, at least during the early 
> registration period, you'd find that a much more diverse audience could 
> attend.
> 
> --TR
> 
> ***
> Terry Reese, Associate Professor
> Gray Family Chair for 
> Innovative Library Services
> 121 Valley Library
> Corvallis, OR 97331
> tel: 541.737.6384
> ***
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett 
> Bonfield
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations
> 
> Seems like a hybrid system might make sense.
> 
> Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both 
> before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for 
> presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee 
> that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it 
> would be worth it.
> 
> I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I 
> think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that 
> everyone is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and 
> also encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As 
> with presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their 
> reserved spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which 
> volunteer positions guarantee the option to attend the conference.
> 
> I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between 
> first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The people who 
> are sitting at their computers the moment registration opens would still get 
> in, and the people who didn't know that was required -- the newer folks whose 
> participation is necessary for code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a 
> reasonable chance to see, in person, what code4lib is all about.
> 
> Brett
> 
> Brett Bonfield
> Director
> Collingswood Public Library
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado  
> wrote:
>> I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time 
>> is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan 
>> accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I 
>> registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially 
>> on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting 
>> locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what 
>> others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time 
>> and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions 
>> of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for 
>> me, but everyone else has 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Karen Schneider]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado wrote:



> I could have done what
> others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time
> and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions
> of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for
> me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would
> not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a
> slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my
> poor planning.
>

Honestly... I just laughed at this scoldy Malthusian post. This is Code4Lib
Insider Baseball. I wonder if anyone would have said this when C4L was
founded. It presupposes so much. Among other things, that a person who
would be a good fit for this conference would avidly hang on C4L's every
word or movement well in advance, and understand all of the games. Then we
wonder why there are so few women working in library IT, available for
speaker panels, featured on important panels, blah blah blah. I feel I've
been hearing what Edward said my entire working life, first in aircraft
maintenance and then in libraries.

The responses to my off-the-cuff suggestion on randomization are
insightful. I like the new ideas flowing. But at least I have said my
piece. I do like the suggestion about capping institutional attendance. It
is amusing to see that institutions sending more people than work at our
library. Institutional diversity would seem to be a  C4L value.

Speaking of C4L insider baseball, hmmm! Beat you at your own game? We just
sold off a pile of card catalogs (we had to keep the shelflist, since half
of our collection hasn't been converted, and it will be a while--your
library's end-of-year chowder for purchasing misc stuff is my library's
entire operational and personnel budget--and I speak from experience in
both institutions). Perhaps we should use the proceeds to fund next year's
Karen G. Schneider Scholarship (make that, The Illustrious Karen G.
Schneider Scholarship for Excellence in Librarianship), for women from
Newfoundland working in academic library technology in California's Bay
Area, preferably those with extensive experience in LMS migrations,
EZProxy, LDAP, and NCIP. I haven't had time to follow C4L very closely
(q.v., "Running 5-Person Library"), but I did notice a thread about a
specialized scholarship that would suggest this might be acceptable.
Although, of course, there will be a reason that I should have understood
that it really isn't acceptable.

As noted before, our AD for Lib Tech would love a good tech conference in
the next six months.  She has ER&L (her first), but would like something
geekier. We appreciate the spirit of the "start your own C4L," and you do
have to ask, why doesn't the Bay Area have one? But--and I've worked in the
big places with the cushy padding, so I am aware that when you work in
aforesaid places, you really don't understand where we are--that's not
feasible at present; she's taken on something else important and "external"
and that's about it for the next 18 mo, given an overflowing plate.

Recommendations welcome. Enjoy C4L. Thank you for a "community" [followed
by a qualified 'sic'] where one can speak one's mind. That is all.

Karen G. Schneider
schnei...@hnu.edu
Former C4L Attendee
Former C4L Keynoter
Former C4L Keynoter Who Survived Socially-Awkward Hecklers
Inspiration for C4L "Sarge"

[CODE4LIB] Rare opportunity to join the elite IRC Access Code4LibCon committee

[Cary Gordon]

So far, it is so elite that it is just me, and it has been a long time
since I accessed IRC from anything other than Apple products.

It would be great if I could get volunteers from the world of Windows
and the league of Linux for the IRC Access committee.

http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php?title=2012_committees_sign-up_page&action=edit§ion=15

Please note that this is, for reasons beyond my ken, distinct from the
IRC Evangelists committee. Perhaps we could join forces.

Thanks,

Cary

-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Shaun Ellis]

I agree that the discussion should focus on ways of adapting the 
conference to serve the expanding community without losing the good 
qualities that come from keeping it small.  This is the future, so the 
community is only going to get bigger.


Perhaps coordinating a different regional meetup every 3 or 4 months is 
not a bad idea.  This way, there are more options in terms of timing, it 
can stay small, and folks at orgs with smaller budgets can justify the 
lower travel costs to their managers.  Of course, registration would not 
be closed to participants outside the region.  And yes, streaming should 
be a priority [...signs up for video streaming/archiving team].


Presentations for each conference could even be grouped to loosely focus 
on certain areas of the domain -- which would draw a concentration of 
those interested in certain domain issues/software.  One of the main 
draws for me to Access this year was the focus on Open Data.


-Shaun


On 12/22/11 11:25 AM, Michael North wrote:

I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one 
comment."watch out for the slippery slope."

There will be "unintended consequences" whenever you try to ensure a "just" registration system, be 
it by controlling "randomness" or by "qualifying" the participants.  Where do you stop!

In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to control the 
250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it available to more people (be it 
by size increase or by video streaming, etc).  True openness and fairness for 
registration will mean that some people  will always not be able to attend, and setting 
up registration "justice" will not fix that approximately 150+ people (and 
more in the future) will not be able to attend no matter what.   And if there is no 
solution to increasing participation, then so be it.  It stays the same size, and 
registration opens at the advertised time (everyone will know when that is) and close 
when full.  Everyone will know thatand make their plans accordingly.

I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane reservations for 
Christmas.  Some get in, some do not, and each person is responsible only to himself for 
doing it "in time."

This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two failed 
attempts to attend in previous years.
My humble opinion only.
Michael North




-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, 
Terry
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it 
is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have some very 
creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it.  On the 
other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions 
trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves.  It 
makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness 
of this community.  I think people like this group because there certainly 
isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them.  When 
we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good 
things happen (as well as some crazy things).  However, there are those times 
when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them.

The conference is a nice event.  It's something I know a lot of us enjoy 
because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people 
are working on.  One of the reasons it works is because of its size.  It's one 
of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the 
attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool 
projects.  But it's certainly not the only place where this happens.

And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some 
diversity to the registration process.  I've not looked at the list fully to 
see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending 
large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon 
State is one of them).  A simple solution would be to limit registrations per 
institution, much the same way CNI does.  My guess is that if registration per 
institution was capped, at least during the early registration period, you'd 
find that a much more diverse audience could attend.

--TR

***
Terry Reese, Associate Professor
Gray Family Chair for
Innovative Library Services
121 Valley Library
Corvallis, OR 97331
tel: 541.737.6384
***



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett 
Bonfield
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subje

Re: [CODE4LIB] Not-so-Obvious answer to registration limitations

[McDonald, Robert H.]

Here is another suggestion - shmoocon is a hack event that works to keep
costs low unlike other events and it does this by releasing tickets
two-three months prior to event at specific time and day of month.

http://www.shmoocon.org/registration

These tix sell out in minutes not hours but the good part is that even
with much prior warning everyone gets a second and third chance at it
whether they know about the original date or not.

Robert


**
Robert H. McDonald
Associate Dean for Library Technologies and Digital Libraries
Associate Director, Data to Insight Center-Pervasive Technology Institute
Executive Director, Kuali OLE
Indiana University
Herman B Wells Library 234
1320 East 10th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
Phone: 812-856-4834
Email: rob...@indiana.edu
Skype/GTalk: rhmcdonald
AIM/MSN: rhmcdonald1

Re: [CODE4LIB] Not-so-Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Elizabeth Duell]

I haven't entered this conversation mostly because I am not 
really part of this community. However, at this point, I think I 
have something to say about the registration process and it's 
foibles.


The land rush registration has been (and I think will be again) a 
nightmare. I have spent far more time dealing with just this 
registration than I have with the entirety of other events I have 
been coordinator for and it's not over yet. Strictly from a 
time/cost perspective, I think that if this community keeps 
registration in that mode, it will be more and more difficult to 
find people who are willing to let their staff devote several 
entire weeks to Code4Lib.


I do understand the 'slippery slope' and I do understand the want 
and need to keep the 'community' feel of a smaller event and I do 
not have the 'right' answer. However, as this event becomes more 
and more popular (we have almost 500 registrations at this 
point), the registration process HAS... and I would even go so 
far as MUST be changed. Because of the ad-hoc nature of the way 
that this event is passed around, a framework and (I hate to 
invoke those bitter words...) best practices have to be agreed on 
so that this tradition can survive and not be crushed under its 
own weight.


For my part, I am preparing information so that next year's group 
has some hard information so that they are better able to make 
decisions.


Growing pains are never fun either personally or within a group, 
but they are necessary to go to the next level.


My two-and-a-half cents worth...

Elizabeth


Elizabeth Duell
Orbis Cascade Alliance
edu...@uoregon.edu
(541) 346-1883

On 12/22/2011 8:25 AM, Michael North wrote:

I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one 
comment."watch out for the slippery slope."

There will be "unintended consequences" whenever you try to ensure a "just" registration system, be 
it by controlling "randomness" or by "qualifying" the participants.  Where do you stop!

In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to control the 
250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it available to more people (be it 
by size increase or by video streaming, etc).  True openness and fairness for 
registration will mean that some people  will always not be able to attend, and setting 
up registration "justice" will not fix that approximately 150+ people (and 
more in the future) will not be able to attend no matter what.   And if there is no 
solution to increasing participation, then so be it.  It stays the same size, and 
registration opens at the advertised time (everyone will know when that is) and close 
when full.  Everyone will know thatand make their plans accordingly.

I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane reservations for 
Christmas.  Some get in, some do not, and each person is responsible only to himself for 
doing it "in time."

This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two failed 
attempts to attend in previous years.
My humble opinion only.
Michael North




-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, 
Terry
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it 
is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have some very 
creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it.  On the 
other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions 
trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves.  It 
makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness 
of this community.  I think people like this group because there certainly 
isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them.  When 
we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good 
things happen (as well as some crazy things).  However, there are those times 
when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them.

The conference is a nice event.  It's something I know a lot of us enjoy 
because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people 
are working on.  One of the reasons it works is because of its size.  It's one 
of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the 
attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool 
projects.  But it's certainly not the only place where this happens.

And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some 
diversity to the registration process.  I've not looked at the list fully to 
see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending 
large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon 
S

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Corey A Harper]

Cary,

Good to know about your extensive experience w/ streaming.

If you'll be in Seattle, would you be willing to add your name to the
"Video Committee" listing?
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/2012_committees_sign-up_page#Video_Committee

Having people who actually know what they're doing involved in this
effort *this* year will help ensure that we're actually able to pull
it off as effectively as IU did...

Thanks,
-Corey


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Cary Gordon  wrote:
> This is definitely doable, and potentially effective for a single
> track conference.
>
> I have been doing streaming as a volunteer for eight years and it
> keeps getting easier.
>
> Cary
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Wilfred Drew  wrote:
>> Here is another crazy idea; stream the event live for those who can't get 
>> registered for the pace to face version and provide a lower registration fee 
>> for them.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Wilfred (Bill) Drew, M.S., B.S., A.S.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Librarian, Systems and Tech Services/Electronic Resources/Serials
>> Tompkins Cortland Community College  (TC3) Library:
>> http://www.tc3.edu/library/
>> Dryden, N.Y. 13053-0139
>> Follow the library: http://twitter.com/TC3Library
>> E-mail: dr...@tc3.edu
>> Phone: 607-844-8222 ext.4406
>> SKYPE/Twitter:BillDrew4
>> SMS/TXT Me: 6072182217
>> Website: http://BillTheLibrarian.com
>> StrengthsQuest Strengths: Ideation, Input, Learner, Command, Analytical
>> http://www.facebook.com/billdrew
>> "One thing about eBooks that most people haven't thought much is that eBooks 
>> are the very first thing that we're all able to have as much as we want 
>> other than air." -- Michael Hart, Project Gutenberg
>> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or document.
>
>
>
> --
> Cary Gordon
> The Cherry Hill Company
> http://chillco.com



-- 
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479
corey.har...@nyu.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Michael North]

I have followed this discussion with great interest and have only one 
comment."watch out for the slippery slope."

There will be "unintended consequences" whenever you try to ensure a "just" 
registration system, be it by controlling "randomness" or by "qualifying" the 
participants.  Where do you stop!  

In the spirit of collaboration and openness, instead of focusing on how to 
control the 250 registration slots, we should focus on how to make it available 
to more people (be it by size increase or by video streaming, etc).  True 
openness and fairness for registration will mean that some people  will always 
not be able to attend, and setting up registration "justice" will not fix 
that approximately 150+ people (and more in the future) will not be able to 
attend no matter what.   And if there is no solution to increasing 
participation, then so be it.  It stays the same size, and registration opens 
at the advertised time (everyone will know when that is) and close when full.  
Everyone will know thatand make their plans accordingly.

I think of it like the Oklahoma Land Rush, or getting your plane reservations 
for Christmas.  Some get in, some do not, and each person is responsible only 
to himself for doing it "in time."

This is from a person who is coming for the first time following two failed 
attempts to attend in previous years.
My humble opinion only.
Michael North 




-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, 
Terry
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:46 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it 
is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have some very 
creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it.  On the 
other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions 
trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves.  It 
makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness 
of this community.  I think people like this group because there certainly 
isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them.  When 
we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good 
things happen (as well as some crazy things).  However, there are those times 
when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them.  

The conference is a nice event.  It's something I know a lot of us enjoy 
because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people 
are working on.  One of the reasons it works is because of its size.  It's one 
of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the 
attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool 
projects.  But it's certainly not the only place where this happens.  

And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some 
diversity to the registration process.  I've not looked at the list fully to 
see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending 
large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon 
State is one of them).  A simple solution would be to limit registrations per 
institution, much the same way CNI does.  My guess is that if registration per 
institution was capped, at least during the early registration period, you'd 
find that a much more diverse audience could attend.

--TR

***
Terry Reese, Associate Professor
Gray Family Chair for 
Innovative Library Services
121 Valley Library
Corvallis, OR 97331
tel: 541.737.6384
***



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett 
Bonfield
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

Seems like a hybrid system might make sense.

Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both before 
registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for 
presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee 
that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it 
would be worth it.

I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I 
think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that everyone 
is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and also 
encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As with 
presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their reserved 
spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer 
positions guarantee the option to attend the conference.

I think the rest of the open spots could be divide

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Fleming, Declan]

Hi - yep, you're right about that.

D

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross 
Singer
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:54 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration 
limitations

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Fleming, Declan  wrote:
> Hi - my hope is that people would commit to the whole week and use the time 
> during the Session they are not in to do other interesting things - camps 
> that could maybe fit in the talks that didn't get voted in, in depth seminars 
> on stuff, etc.  This way everyone is still in town for the social stuff and 
> everyone gets to see a full program.  And to buy me beer.
>
> I see the single track advantage in that I'm not missing something by 
> choosing one session over another.  I don't really care as much about who is 
> in the track with me, I guess.  Q&A might have a different flavor, but with 
> the 20 minute time slots, there's hardly time for Q&A anyway.  And anything 
> deep will show up on the channel.

But lightning talks and breakouts are going to be completely different.

-Ross.
>
> D
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Jay Luker
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:29 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration 
> limitations
>
> I agree with Ed: I like that someone is throwing out crazy ideas. I don't 
> particularly like this crazy idea though.
>
> If you accept that the downside to multiple tracks is fracturing of the 
> audience/community, then I don't see how holding a 2nd clone of the 
> conference on subsequent days gets around that. It might even be worse 
> because in a  parallel multi-track setups you would at least have the benefit 
> of bumping into and networking with the entire, larger group in the 
> off-hours. Of course, inherent in this argument is the idea that it's not the 
> actual talks that provide the most value in attending the conference.
>
> Also I agree about the "Speaker Gulag" issue.
>
> --jay
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Edward M. Corrado  
> wrote:
>> I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I 
>> like the out of the box thinking.
>>
>> If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could 
>> just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess.
>> That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as 
>> needing a room for 500 people the whole time.
>>
>> Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I 
>> guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate 
>> in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they 
>> approached it.
>>
>> Edward
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  
>> wrote:
>>> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
>>> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
>>> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
>>> lines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
 Hi - so I know this is nuts.

 If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:

 1.  Single thread is crucial.
 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
 3.  400+ people want to attend.
 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.

 What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?

 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each 
 Session, in the same order.
 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.

 We could serve 500 attendees this way.

 If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack 
 fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of 
 the 500 that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide 
 to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.

 I SAID it was crazy.  ;)

 D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray
>>> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS 
>>> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
>>> +1 678-235-2955
>>>
>>> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
>>> Suite 200
>>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>>> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
>>> Fax: 404.892.7879
>>> www.lyrasis.org
>>>
>>> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Ross Singer]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Fleming, Declan  wrote:
> Hi - my hope is that people would commit to the whole week and use the time 
> during the Session they are not in to do other interesting things - camps 
> that could maybe fit in the talks that didn't get voted in, in depth seminars 
> on stuff, etc.  This way everyone is still in town for the social stuff and 
> everyone gets to see a full program.  And to buy me beer.
>
> I see the single track advantage in that I'm not missing something by 
> choosing one session over another.  I don't really care as much about who is 
> in the track with me, I guess.  Q&A might have a different flavor, but with 
> the 20 minute time slots, there's hardly time for Q&A anyway.  And anything 
> deep will show up on the channel.

But lightning talks and breakouts are going to be completely different.

-Ross.
>
> D
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jay 
> Luker
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:29 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration 
> limitations
>
> I agree with Ed: I like that someone is throwing out crazy ideas. I don't 
> particularly like this crazy idea though.
>
> If you accept that the downside to multiple tracks is fracturing of the 
> audience/community, then I don't see how holding a 2nd clone of the 
> conference on subsequent days gets around that. It might even be worse 
> because in a  parallel multi-track setups you would at least have the benefit 
> of bumping into and networking with the entire, larger group in the 
> off-hours. Of course, inherent in this argument is the idea that it's not the 
> actual talks that provide the most value in attending the conference.
>
> Also I agree about the "Speaker Gulag" issue.
>
> --jay
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Edward M. Corrado  
> wrote:
>> I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I
>> like the out of the box thinking.
>>
>> If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could
>> just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess.
>> That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as
>> needing a room for 500 people the whole time.
>>
>> Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I
>> guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate
>> in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they
>> approached it.
>>
>> Edward
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  
>> wrote:
>>> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
>>> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
>>> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
>>> lines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
 Hi - so I know this is nuts.

 If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:

 1.  Single thread is crucial.
 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
 3.  400+ people want to attend.
 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.

 What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?

 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each 
 Session, in the same order.
 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.

 We could serve 500 attendees this way.

 If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack 
 fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of 
 the 500 that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide 
 to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.

 I SAID it was crazy.  ;)

 D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray
>>> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS
>>> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
>>> +1 678-235-2955
>>>
>>> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
>>> Suite 200
>>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>>> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
>>> Fax: 404.892.7879
>>> www.lyrasis.org
>>>
>>> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Fleming, Declan]

Hi - my hope is that people would commit to the whole week and use the time 
during the Session they are not in to do other interesting things - camps that 
could maybe fit in the talks that didn't get voted in, in depth seminars on 
stuff, etc.  This way everyone is still in town for the social stuff and 
everyone gets to see a full program.  And to buy me beer.

I see the single track advantage in that I'm not missing something by choosing 
one session over another.  I don't really care as much about who is in the 
track with me, I guess.  Q&A might have a different flavor, but with the 20 
minute time slots, there's hardly time for Q&A anyway.  And anything deep will 
show up on the channel.

D

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jay 
Luker
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:29 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration 
limitations

I agree with Ed: I like that someone is throwing out crazy ideas. I don't 
particularly like this crazy idea though.

If you accept that the downside to multiple tracks is fracturing of the 
audience/community, then I don't see how holding a 2nd clone of the conference 
on subsequent days gets around that. It might even be worse because in a  
parallel multi-track setups you would at least have the benefit of bumping into 
and networking with the entire, larger group in the off-hours. Of course, 
inherent in this argument is the idea that it's not the actual talks that 
provide the most value in attending the conference.

Also I agree about the "Speaker Gulag" issue.

--jay

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Edward M. Corrado  
wrote:
> I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I 
> like the out of the box thinking.
>
> If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could 
> just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess.
> That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as 
> needing a room for 500 people the whole time.
>
> Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I 
> guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate 
> in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they 
> approached it.
>
> Edward
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  
> wrote:
>> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
>> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
>> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
>> lines.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
>>> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
>>>
>>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
>>>
>>> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
>>> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
>>> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
>>> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
>>>
>>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?
>>>
>>> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
>>> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
>>> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each 
>>> Session, in the same order.
>>> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
>>>
>>> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
>>>
>>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack 
>>> fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of 
>>> the 500 that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide 
>>> to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
>>>
>>> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
>>>
>>> D
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray
>> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS 
>> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
>> +1 678-235-2955
>>
>> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
>> Suite 200
>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
>> Fax: 404.892.7879
>> www.lyrasis.org
>>
>> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Reese, Terry]

I find it hard not to laugh a little bit at this ongoing discussion because it 
is so uniquely part of this community.  On the one hand, you have some very 
creative people that think that they see a problem and want to fix it.  On the 
other, people are spinning their wheels, throwing out the crazies solutions 
trying to solve a problem that we as the community have created ourselves.  It 
makes me smile because it really does personify both the strengths and weakness 
of this community.  I think people like this group because there certainly 
isn't a lack of ideas or people willing to spend time and energy on them.  When 
we put that energy towards coding and solving problems in libraries -- good 
things happen (as well as some crazy things).  However, there are those times 
when it feels like things go off the rails and to me, this is one of them.  

The conference is a nice event.  It's something I know a lot of us enjoy 
because it’s a time to get together with colleagues and find out what people 
are working on.  One of the reasons it works is because of its size.  It's one 
of the few conferences where I get the opportunity to meet most of the 
attendees and get to have significant conversations around some very cool 
projects.  But it's certainly not the only place where this happens.  

And with all that said, I can't help but make one suggestion to help add some 
diversity to the registration process.  I've not looked at the list fully to 
see who is attending, but I think you'd find that some institutions are sending 
large contingencies to the conference (and I can't toss stones, because Oregon 
State is one of them).  A simple solution would be to limit registrations per 
institution, much the same way CNI does.  My guess is that if registration per 
institution was capped, at least during the early registration period, you'd 
find that a much more diverse audience could attend.

--TR

***
Terry Reese, Associate Professor
Gray Family Chair for 
Innovative Library Services
121 Valley Library
Corvallis, OR 97331
tel: 541.737.6384
***



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett 
Bonfield
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:27 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

Seems like a hybrid system might make sense.

Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on both before 
registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate voting for 
presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the scholarship committee 
that it would be difficult to complete that process in time. But I think it 
would be worth it.

I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of volunteers. I 
think this would help with continuity, help to preserve the idea that everyone 
is a participant, reward people who put in considerable time, and also 
encourage more people to volunteer for the more time-consuming jobs. As with 
presenters, volunteers would have to pay for registration and their reserved 
spots would be non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer 
positions guarantee the option to attend the conference.

I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between 
first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The people who 
are sitting at their computers the moment registration opens would still get 
in, and the people who didn't know that was required -- the newer folks whose 
participation is necessary for code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a 
reasonable chance to see, in person, what code4lib is all about.

Brett

Brett Bonfield
Director
Collingswood Public Library

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado  wrote:
> I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time 
> is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan 
> accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I 
> registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially 
> on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting 
> locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what 
> others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time 
> and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions 
> of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for 
> me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would 
> not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a 
> slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my 
> poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and 
> maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have 
> good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and 
> adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the 
> li

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Cary Gordon]

This is definitely doable, and potentially effective for a single
track conference.

I have been doing streaming as a volunteer for eight years and it
keeps getting easier.

Cary

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Wilfred Drew  wrote:
> Here is another crazy idea; stream the event live for those who can't get 
> registered for the pace to face version and provide a lower registration fee 
> for them.
>
>
> -
> Wilfred (Bill) Drew, M.S., B.S., A.S.
> Assistant Professor
> Librarian, Systems and Tech Services/Electronic Resources/Serials
> Tompkins Cortland Community College  (TC3) Library:
> http://www.tc3.edu/library/
> Dryden, N.Y. 13053-0139
> Follow the library: http://twitter.com/TC3Library
> E-mail: dr...@tc3.edu
> Phone: 607-844-8222 ext.4406
> SKYPE/Twitter:BillDrew4
> SMS/TXT Me: 6072182217
> Website: http://BillTheLibrarian.com
> StrengthsQuest Strengths: Ideation, Input, Learner, Command, Analytical
> http://www.facebook.com/billdrew
> "One thing about eBooks that most people haven't thought much is that eBooks 
> are the very first thing that we're all able to have as much as we want other 
> than air." -- Michael Hart, Project Gutenberg
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or document.



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Michael J. Giarlo]

Seems a reasonable suggestion to me.  The tricky bit will be how to
decide who's contributed substantially as a volunteer.  Or maybe I'm
overthinking it.  Otherwise, I like the blend of
first-come-first-served, guaranteed slots for folks who put in the
time, and a lottery system for those who don't register for code4lib
like they're trying to get free METALLICA* tickets.

-Mike

* Wait, are they still even around?


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:26, Brett Bonfield  wrote:
> Seems like a hybrid system might make sense.
>
> Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on
> both before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate
> voting for presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the
> scholarship committee that it would be difficult to complete that
> process in time. But I think it would be worth it.
>
> I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of
> volunteers. I think this would help with continuity, help to preserve
> the idea that everyone is a participant, reward people who put in
> considerable time, and also encourage more people to volunteer for the
> more time-consuming jobs. As with presenters, volunteers would have to
> pay for registration and their reserved spots would be
> non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer positions
> guarantee the option to attend the conference.
>
> I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between
> first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The
> people who are sitting at their computers the moment registration
> opens would still get in, and the people who didn't know that was
> required -- the newer folks whose participation is necessary for
> code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a reasonable chance to see, in
> person, what code4lib is all about.
>
> Brett
>
> Brett Bonfield
> Director
> Collingswood Public Library
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado  
> wrote:
>> I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time
>> is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan
>> accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I
>> registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially
>> on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting
>> locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what
>> others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time
>> and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions
>> of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for
>> me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would
>> not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a
>> slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my
>> poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and
>> maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have
>> good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and
>> adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the
>> library world suffering more.
>>
>> Edward
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider  
>> wrote:
>>> I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology
>>> could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then
>>> pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good
>>> for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and
>>> it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her
>>> before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were
>>> without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions
>>> I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact
>>> that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy
>>> needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a
>>> few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she
>>> does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all
>>> the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there.
>>>
>>> The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's
>>> not at Code4Lib.
>>>
>>> My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign
>>> spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I
>>> have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket).
>>>
>>> FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but
>>> invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your
>>> super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond
>>> what we can make possible. We'll keep looking.
>>>
>>> Karen G. Schneider
>>> Director for Library Services
>>> Holy Names University
>>> http://library.hnu.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Wilfred Drew]

Here is another crazy idea; stream the event live for those who can't get 
registered for the pace to face version and provide a lower registration fee 
for them.  


-
Wilfred (Bill) Drew, M.S., B.S., A.S.
Assistant Professor
Librarian, Systems and Tech Services/Electronic Resources/Serials
Tompkins Cortland Community College  (TC3) Library:
http://www.tc3.edu/library/ 
Dryden, N.Y. 13053-0139
Follow the library: http://twitter.com/TC3Library
E-mail: dr...@tc3.edu
Phone: 607-844-8222 ext.4406
SKYPE/Twitter:BillDrew4
SMS/TXT Me: 6072182217
Website: http://BillTheLibrarian.com 
StrengthsQuest Strengths: Ideation, Input, Learner, Command, Analytical
http://www.facebook.com/billdrew
"One thing about eBooks that most people haven't thought much is that eBooks 
are the very first thing that we're all able to have as much as we want other 
than air." -- Michael Hart, Project Gutenberg
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or document.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Jay Luker]

I agree with Ed: I like that someone is throwing out crazy ideas. I
don't particularly like this crazy idea though.

If you accept that the downside to multiple tracks is fracturing of
the audience/community, then I don't see how holding a 2nd clone of
the conference on subsequent days gets around that. It might even be
worse because in a  parallel multi-track setups you would at least
have the benefit of bumping into and networking with the entire,
larger group in the off-hours. Of course, inherent in this argument is
the idea that it's not the actual talks that provide the most value in
attending the conference.

Also I agree about the "Speaker Gulag" issue.

--jay

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Edward M. Corrado
 wrote:
> I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I
> like the out of the box thinking.
>
> If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could
> just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess.
> That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as
> needing a room for 500 people the whole time.
>
> Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I
> guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate
> in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they
> approached it.
>
> Edward
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  
> wrote:
>> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
>> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
>> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
>> lines.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
>>> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
>>>
>>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
>>>
>>> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
>>> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
>>> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
>>> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
>>>
>>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?
>>>
>>> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
>>> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
>>> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each 
>>> Session, in the same order.
>>> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
>>>
>>> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
>>>
>>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack 
>>> fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of 
>>> the 500 that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide 
>>> to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
>>>
>>> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
>>>
>>> D
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray
>> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
>> LYRASIS
>> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
>> +1 678-235-2955
>>
>> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
>> Suite 200
>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
>> Fax: 404.892.7879
>> www.lyrasis.org
>>
>> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Brett Bonfield]

Seems like a hybrid system might make sense.

Reserve spots for presenters and scholarship winners, and decide on
both before registration opens. I'm sure it's difficult to coordinate
voting for presenters, and I know from having volunteered on the
scholarship committee that it would be difficult to complete that
process in time. But I think it would be worth it.

I think it also makes sense to reserve spots for some number of
volunteers. I think this would help with continuity, help to preserve
the idea that everyone is a participant, reward people who put in
considerable time, and also encourage more people to volunteer for the
more time-consuming jobs. As with presenters, volunteers would have to
pay for registration and their reserved spots would be
non-transferable. Code4lib could vote on which volunteer positions
guarantee the option to attend the conference.

I think the rest of the open spots could be divided between
first-come-first-served and a lottery system (50/50? 60/40?). The
people who are sitting at their computers the moment registration
opens would still get in, and the people who didn't know that was
required -- the newer folks whose participation is necessary for
code4lib to stay relevant -- would have a reasonable chance to see, in
person, what code4lib is all about.

Brett

Brett Bonfield
Director
Collingswood Public Library

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado  wrote:
> I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time
> is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan
> accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I
> registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially
> on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting
> locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what
> others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time
> and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions
> of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for
> me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would
> not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a
> slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my
> poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and
> maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have
> good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and
> adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the
> library world suffering more.
>
> Edward
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider  
> wrote:
>> I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology
>> could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then
>> pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good
>> for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and
>> it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her
>> before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were
>> without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions
>> I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact
>> that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy
>> needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a
>> few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she
>> does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all
>> the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there.
>>
>> The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's
>> not at Code4Lib.
>>
>> My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign
>> spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I
>> have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket).
>>
>> FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but
>> invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your
>> super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond
>> what we can make possible. We'll keep looking.
>>
>> Karen G. Schneider
>> Director for Library Services
>> Holy Names University
>> http://library.hnu.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Michael J. Giarlo]

At least Declan acknowledged the idea was nuts from the outset.

Yes, it's nuts.  Until I see a hosting proposal putting one of these
ideas forward, well, I was gonna say something snarky about endless
discussion but this is kind of a discussion list and I just added to
it. :)

Mmmm, this foot tastes delicious.

-Mike


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:12, Ross Singer  wrote:
> Given the fact that they have to be there twice as long (i.e. twice as
> expensive), what would be the incentive to present?
>
> This, personally, sounds like Presenter Gulag to me.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  
> wrote:
>> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
>> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
>> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
>> lines.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
>>> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
>>>
>>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
>>>
>>> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
>>> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
>>> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
>>> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
>>>
>>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?
>>>
>>> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
>>> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
>>> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each 
>>> Session, in the same order.
>>> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
>>>
>>> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
>>>
>>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack 
>>> fests, BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of 
>>> the 500 that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide 
>>> to come for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
>>>
>>> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
>>>
>>> D
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray
>> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
>> LYRASIS
>> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
>> +1 678-235-2955
>>
>> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
>> Suite 200
>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
>> Fax: 404.892.7879
>> www.lyrasis.org
>>
>> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Edward M. Corrado]

I agree it is a crazy idea and I'm not sure if it would work, but I
like the out of the box thinking.

If the site had one big space that could handle 500 people, you could
just have one keynote session that both groups attended., I guess.
That does restricts the options for locations, but not as much as
needing a room for 500 people the whole time.

Speaker wise, you'd probably only have to be there one extra day. I
guess that might mean, however, that a speaker (w|c)ould participate
in half of conference A and half of conference B if that is how they
approached it.

Edward

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  wrote:
> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
> lines.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
>> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
>>
>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
>>
>> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
>> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
>> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
>> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
>>
>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?
>>
>> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
>> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
>> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each Session, 
>> in the same order.
>> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
>>
>> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
>>
>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack fests, 
>> BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of the 500 
>> that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide to come 
>> for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
>>
>> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
>>
>> D
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray
> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
> LYRASIS
> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
> +1 678-235-2955
>
> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
> Suite 200
> Atlanta, GA 30309
> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
> Fax: 404.892.7879
> www.lyrasis.org
>
> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Ross Singer]

Given the fact that they have to be there twice as long (i.e. twice as
expensive), what would be the incentive to present?

This, personally, sounds like Presenter Gulag to me.

-Ross.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Peter Murray  wrote:
> That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook 
> for two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be 
> interesting for a site to flesh this out and propose something along these 
> lines.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
>> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
>>
>> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
>>
>> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
>> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
>> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
>> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
>>
>> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?
>>
>> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
>> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
>> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each Session, 
>> in the same order.
>> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
>>
>> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
>>
>> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack fests, 
>> BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of the 500 
>> that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide to come 
>> for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
>>
>> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
>>
>> D
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray
> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
> LYRASIS
> peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
> +1 678-235-2955
>
> 1438 West Peachtree Street NW
> Suite 200
> Atlanta, GA 30309
> Toll Free: 800.999.8558
> Fax: 404.892.7879
> www.lyrasis.org
>
> LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Jon Stroop]

Maybe keynotes happen on the middle day; the one time where the whole 
group comes together, though it would require a 2x size space... This 
could also reduce the length to 4.5 days.


On 12/22/2011 10:05 AM, Peter Murray wrote:

That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook for 
two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be interesting for 
a site to flesh this out and propose something along these lines.


Peter

On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:

Hi - so I know this is nuts.

If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:

1.  Single thread is crucial.
2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
3.  400+ people want to attend.
4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.

What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?

1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each Session, in 
the same order.
4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.

We could serve 500 attendees this way.

If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack fests, 
BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of the 500 
that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide to come for 
the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.

I SAID it was crazy.  ;)

D

Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

[Peter Murray]

That is a crazy idea.  I don't know about putting the speakers on the hook for 
two days -- particularly keynote speakers.  Still, it would be interesting for 
a site to flesh this out and propose something along these lines.


Peter  

On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Fleming, Declan wrote:
> Hi - so I know this is nuts.
> 
> If we start with a couple premises for the code4lib conference:
> 
> 1.  Single thread is crucial.
> 2.  250 is about the top limit of a single threaded conference.
> 3.  400+ people want to attend.
> 4.  The conference takes 2.5 days.
> 
> What if we ran the 2.5 day conference twice in one week?  
> 
> 1.  Session 1 runs from Monday until noon on Weds.
> 2.  Session 2 runs from 1p on Weds until the end of Friday.
> 3.  Every one of the 23 accepted talks is given twice, once in each Session, 
> in the same order.
> 4.  Each Session is attended by a different set of attendees.
> 
> We could serve 500 attendees this way.
> 
> If everyone came for the week, there could be parallel seminars, hack fests, 
> BootCamps, THATcamps, CURATEcamps, c4lcamps, etc... for the half of the 500 
> that wasn't in the main conference.  People could also just decide to come 
> for the 2.5 day main conference, I guess.
> 
> I SAID it was crazy.  ;)
> 
> D



-- 
Peter Murray
Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
LYRASIS
peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
+1 678-235-2955
 
1438 West Peachtree Street NW
Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Toll Free: 800.999.8558
Fax: 404.892.7879 
www.lyrasis.org
 
LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

[Edward M. Corrado]

I disagree about the random registration concept. As long as the time
is announced in advance (which was done this year) people should plan
accordingly. You didn't need to register the first minute this year. I
registered an hour after registration opened and while I was initially
on the waiting list, I eventually got a slot. If I ended up getting
locked out it would've been my own fault. I could have done what
others did and purposely avoided scheduling meetings around that time
and rescheduled the one that was but I didn't. Yes, I have bazillions
of other things to do and the registration time wasn't convenient for
me, but everyone else has bazillions of things to do as well. It would
not have been luck that got the people in who registered before me a
slot - it would have been a combination of their good planning and my
poor planning. Yes good people miss out when registration fills up and
maybe the library world suffers, but a random process would still have
good people miss out -- including those who would make the effort and
adjust there schedules accordingly -- which I think would lead to the
library world suffering more.

Edward

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Karen Schneider  wrote:
> I was really hoping that our Associate Director for Library Technology
> could attend Code4Lib. She did her best, but didn't make it. She was then
> pushed hard, early on, to drop her hotel room, which she did not do (good
> for her) though I'm guessing she has by now. We're a 5-person library and
> it's amazing to have someone with her expertise (IT tried to steal her
> before I arrived, but I took her back), and we wouldn't be what we were
> without her. I felt I owed her Code4Lib, but busy with my own distractions
> I hadn't been on this list for a long time, and didn't tune in to the fact
> that registration for C4L has become so nutzo that either she or her proxy
> needed to be sitting on the reg process the very minute it opened, not a
> few minutes later. She was probably doing one of the 8 bazillion things she
> does every long day that help keep us going and differentiate us from all
> the other teeny-weeny uni libraries out there.
>
> The library world will be a little less than what it could be because she's
> not at Code4Lib.
>
> My idea: registration should open for two weeks, close, and then assign
> spots randomly (and if it's too hard to think how that might be done, I
> have a few thousand old catalog cards you can toss in a bucket).
>
> FYI, I know what zoia is, and I even know WHO the real Zoia is, but
> invoking that super-secret-stuff is just icky. Maybe she doesn't need your
> super-secret decoder rings anyway. She does want to stretch herself beyond
> what we can make possible. We'll keep looking.
>
> Karen G. Schneider
> Director for Library Services
> Holy Names University
> http://library.hnu.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] NEcode4lib?

[Jay Luker]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Mark A. Matienzo  wrote:
> Definitely. Some colleagues in New Haven and I put in a proposal to
> host the 2011 conference here:
>  I'm still
> interested in the possibility of hosting a regional, and Yale could
> certainly be an option to host.

Do you think there would be interest in reviving this proposal to
submit for hosting the 2013 conference? If not, perhaps you could trim
it to 1-1.5 days and toss it out there for sometime later in the
Spring?

--jay