Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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 kgschnei...@gmail.com 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 rossfsin...@gmail.com 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 ecorr...@ecorrado.us 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 kgschnei...@gmail.com 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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
ecorr...@ecorrado.us 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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 pace...@gmail.com 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 ecorr...@ecorrado.us 
 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 kgschnei...@gmail.com 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 dr...@tc3.edu 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] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread Ross Singer
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Fleming, Declan dflem...@ucsd.edu 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.  QA might have a different flavor, but with 
 the 20 minute time slots, there's hardly time for QA 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 ecorr...@ecorrado.us 
 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 dflem...@ucsd.edu 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.  QA might have a different flavor, but with 
 the 20 minute time slots, there's hardly time for QA 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 ecorr...@ecorrado.us 
 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 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org 
 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 divided between 

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

2011-12-22 Thread 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 listu...@chillco.com 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 dr...@tc3.edu 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] Not-so-Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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 
State is one 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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
Subject: Re: 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread Karen Schneider
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Edward M. Corrado ecorr...@ecorrado.uswrote:



 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 ERL (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


Re: [CODE4LIB] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread Karen Schneider
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick cf...@stanford.eduwrote:

 +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

2011-12-22 Thread 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

2011-12-22 Thread Michael J. Giarlo
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com 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] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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 listu...@chillco.com 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 dr...@tc3.edu 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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
leftw...@alumni.rutgers.edu wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 13:16, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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

2011-12-22 Thread 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] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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 kscla...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Reese, Terry
 terry.re...@oregonstate.edu 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] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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


[CODE4LIB] T-shirt contest winner

2011-12-22 Thread 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] Obvious answer to registration limitations

2011-12-22 Thread 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