- it requires applicants to be at an institution running a particular piece of software - it connects "commitment to open source" to code4lib in an arbitrary way - it emphasizes institution in a way we generally frown upon
If you care to read further, I'll explain a little more.
I come to code4lib thinking of it as a strong collection of individuals. I prefer to emphasize the connections I make with people, rather than the organization they represent, because most years a good chunk of the people have changed employers anyway. For example, this year will be my seventh code4lib and my name tag will show my fourth institution in that time span. I'd like to think that when I see old friends or meet new ones each year that people remember me and what I've done more than who I work for, and I try to do the same for others. Surely not everybody agrees or even shares these values but I don't think I'm too far off from something that some of you do agree about.
When issues of corporate sponsorship come up, we tend as a group to err on the side of caution. We don't have an exhibit hall; we don't do "view from the vendors" corporate/product update panels; we don't even support corporate-sponsored social events, although that one's been a fine line. We discourage "product pitch" talks, and when they do sneak in we tell the speakers after (or at least I do, and I know I'm not alone) "send your engineers to talk about your code, leave your sales pitches at home" or something like that, albeit politely and preferably over beers. When we do take money from corporate sponsors, we apply it as broadly as possible - against overall expenses, to keep registration costs down for everybody who attends. And we *do* take sponsorship money from corporations whether they produce FLOSS or proprietary software, so while there might be an overall bias towards open source, we don't disallow registrations from attendees who come from any particular organizations or who use or don't use (or misuse) any particular products.
Our scholarship programs encourage first-time attendees and people in groups who are underrepresented at code4lib, and this is something that I presume most everybody agrees similarly benefits every single person who attends.
So I dislike the idea of a scholarship that depends on someone's organizational affiliation. Why should I be disqualified from applying if my organization doesn't use it? Why wouldn't every other software vendor want to do the same thing? Are we going to reserve 20-30 spots each for people using specific software packages? And what about people who aren't employed?
I dislike the idea of tying the scholarship to commitment to open source because it's totally arbitrary, and it feels like a political test. I like when I get into arguments with people at code4lib or on this list (and boy howdy I hope I'm starting a good argument here) or code4lib irc because we disagree about things that matter like this. If you care about code and you care about libraries I want you to have a chance to go to code4lib whether you work for the biggest proprietary vendor in the world or whether you're a high schooler who's never had a real job in a library but hacks on some random cool library app as a volunteer at your local public library. How you write code for your library is what I want to learn about, whether I agree with your approach or not.
And I dislike the "currently running one of these applications" requirement because sometimes those decisions are institutional ones, not individual ones. What if I really want to run one of these but my organization won't let me, but I want to go to code4lib to learn more about it so I can make a better case for it back home? Would I be disqualified because I'm not actively using it?
I'll end my criticism with a more positive statement. I know you guys at ESI because you've been part of code4lib from the beginning... you gave the first keynotes, you hosted the second event, you've been corporate sponsors for years. I don't doubt your commitment to code4lib as an event or a group of people or whatever and I don't believe your intentions aren't good. Instead I'll just ask: please consider removing these restrictions from your scholarship program. Instead you might consider adding to the existing scholarship program, the diversity and minority scholarships. These could include people who might be your customers some day but aren't right now, and your potential reach in an act of community support would be much broader.
I wouldn't have any objection to corporations sponsoring scholarships; essentially, we already do that now with OSU and DLF. If the list of organizations grew much further, we might consider handling it differently, but it seems to have worked well in the past and I think you'd be strengthening it into the future.
I agree, I think. Although I don't think we have or would want any way to PREVENT someone from offering scholarships to C4Lconf on whatever grounds they might choose, I would have the same feedback as Dan to Equinox, who I know is interested in our feedback (whcih doesn't mean they'll automatically do what we say, naturally).
> - it requires applicants to be at an institution running a particular > piece of software > - it connects "commitment to open source" to code4lib in an arbitrary way > - it emphasizes institution in a way we generally frown upon
> If you care to read further, I'll explain a little more.
> I come to code4lib thinking of it as a strong collection of > individuals. I prefer to emphasize the connections I make with > people, rather than the organization they represent, because most > years a good chunk of the people have changed employers anyway. For > example, this year will be my seventh code4lib and my name tag will > show my fourth institution in that time span. I'd like to think that > when I see old friends or meet new ones each year that people remember > me and what I've done more than who I work for, and I try to do the > same for others. Surely not everybody agrees or even shares these > values but I don't think I'm too far off from something that some of > you do agree about.
> When issues of corporate sponsorship come up, we tend as a group to > err on the side of caution. We don't have an exhibit hall; we don't > do "view from the vendors" corporate/product update panels; we don't > even support corporate-sponsored social events, although that one's > been a fine line. We discourage "product pitch" talks, and when they > do sneak in we tell the speakers after (or at least I do, and I know > I'm not alone) "send your engineers to talk about your code, leave > your sales pitches at home" or something like that, albeit politely > and preferably over beers. When we do take money from corporate > sponsors, we apply it as broadly as possible - against overall > expenses, to keep registration costs down for everybody who attends. > And we *do* take sponsorship money from corporations whether they > produce FLOSS or proprietary software, so while there might be an > overall bias towards open source, we don't disallow registrations from > attendees who come from any particular organizations or who use or > don't use (or misuse) any particular products.
> Our scholarship programs encourage first-time attendees and people in > groups who are underrepresented at code4lib, and this is something > that I presume most everybody agrees similarly benefits every single > person who attends.
> So I dislike the idea of a scholarship that depends on someone's > organizational affiliation. Why should I be disqualified from > applying if my organization doesn't use it? Why wouldn't every other > software vendor want to do the same thing? Are we going to reserve > 20-30 spots each for people using specific software packages? And > what about people who aren't employed?
> I dislike the idea of tying the scholarship to commitment to open > source because it's totally arbitrary, and it feels like a political > test. I like when I get into arguments with people at code4lib or on > this list (and boy howdy I hope I'm starting a good argument here) or > code4lib irc because we disagree about things that matter like this. > If you care about code and you care about libraries I want you to have > a chance to go to code4lib whether you work for the biggest > proprietary vendor in the world or whether you're a high schooler > who's never had a real job in a library but hacks on some random cool > library app as a volunteer at your local public library. How you > write code for your library is what I want to learn about, whether I > agree with your approach or not.
> And I dislike the "currently running one of these applications" > requirement because sometimes those decisions are institutional ones, > not individual ones. What if I really want to run one of these but my > organization won't let me, but I want to go to code4lib to learn more > about it so I can make a better case for it back home? Would I be > disqualified because I'm not actively using it?
> I'll end my criticism with a more positive statement. I know you guys > at ESI because you've been part of code4lib from the beginning... you > gave the first keynotes, you hosted the second event, you've been > corporate sponsors for years. I don't doubt your commitment to > code4lib as an event or a group of people or whatever and I don't > believe your intentions aren't good. Instead I'll just ask: please > consider removing these restrictions from your scholarship program. > Instead you might consider adding to the existing scholarship program, > the diversity and minority scholarships. These could include people > who might be your customers some day but aren't right now, and your > potential reach in an act of community support would be much broader.
> I wouldn't have any objection to corporations sponsoring scholarships; > essentially, we already do that now with OSU and DLF. If the list of > organizations grew much further, we might consider handling it > differently, but it seems to have worked well in the past and I think > you'd be strengthening it into the future.
Although on further reflection (10 seconds later!), I'd point out the scholarship does not require the institution to be running "a particular" piece of software. It requires them to be running or actively committed to moving towards either of TWO pieces of software, Evergreen OR Koha. And further point out that it does NOT require them to be an ESI customer, which is nice.
I'd still rather that C4L scholarships were offered without these restrictions, for most of the same reasons Dan said. But I don't think it's a huge deal. If a vendor were offering scholarships to only their customers, it would bother me much more, but even still.... But I have no desire to prevent anyone from offering scholarships to C4L on whatever grounds.
It doesn't bother me at all, however, to connect "commitment to open source" with C4L scholarships, in theory.
> I agree, I think. Although I don't think we have or would want any way > to PREVENT someone from offering scholarships to C4Lconf on whatever > grounds they might choose, I would have the same feedback as Dan to > Equinox, who I know is interested in our feedback (whcih doesn't mean > they'll automatically do what we say, naturally).
> On 12/1/2011 3:47 PM, D Chudnov wrote: >> Is it just me or does something seem wrong to anyone else about this?
>> - it requires applicants to be at an institution running a particular >> piece of software >> - it connects "commitment to open source" to code4lib in an >> arbitrary way >> - it emphasizes institution in a way we generally frown upon
>> If you care to read further, I'll explain a little more.
>> I come to code4lib thinking of it as a strong collection of >> individuals. I prefer to emphasize the connections I make with >> people, rather than the organization they represent, because most >> years a good chunk of the people have changed employers anyway. For >> example, this year will be my seventh code4lib and my name tag will >> show my fourth institution in that time span. I'd like to think that >> when I see old friends or meet new ones each year that people remember >> me and what I've done more than who I work for, and I try to do the >> same for others. Surely not everybody agrees or even shares these >> values but I don't think I'm too far off from something that some of >> you do agree about.
>> When issues of corporate sponsorship come up, we tend as a group to >> err on the side of caution. We don't have an exhibit hall; we don't >> do "view from the vendors" corporate/product update panels; we don't >> even support corporate-sponsored social events, although that one's >> been a fine line. We discourage "product pitch" talks, and when they >> do sneak in we tell the speakers after (or at least I do, and I know >> I'm not alone) "send your engineers to talk about your code, leave >> your sales pitches at home" or something like that, albeit politely >> and preferably over beers. When we do take money from corporate >> sponsors, we apply it as broadly as possible - against overall >> expenses, to keep registration costs down for everybody who attends. >> And we *do* take sponsorship money from corporations whether they >> produce FLOSS or proprietary software, so while there might be an >> overall bias towards open source, we don't disallow registrations from >> attendees who come from any particular organizations or who use or >> don't use (or misuse) any particular products.
>> Our scholarship programs encourage first-time attendees and people in >> groups who are underrepresented at code4lib, and this is something >> that I presume most everybody agrees similarly benefits every single >> person who attends.
>> So I dislike the idea of a scholarship that depends on someone's >> organizational affiliation. Why should I be disqualified from >> applying if my organization doesn't use it? Why wouldn't every other >> software vendor want to do the same thing? Are we going to reserve >> 20-30 spots each for people using specific software packages? And >> what about people who aren't employed?
>> I dislike the idea of tying the scholarship to commitment to open >> source because it's totally arbitrary, and it feels like a political >> test. I like when I get into arguments with people at code4lib or on >> this list (and boy howdy I hope I'm starting a good argument here) or >> code4lib irc because we disagree about things that matter like this. >> If you care about code and you care about libraries I want you to have >> a chance to go to code4lib whether you work for the biggest >> proprietary vendor in the world or whether you're a high schooler >> who's never had a real job in a library but hacks on some random cool >> library app as a volunteer at your local public library. How you >> write code for your library is what I want to learn about, whether I >> agree with your approach or not.
>> And I dislike the "currently running one of these applications" >> requirement because sometimes those decisions are institutional ones, >> not individual ones. What if I really want to run one of these but my >> organization won't let me, but I want to go to code4lib to learn more >> about it so I can make a better case for it back home? Would I be >> disqualified because I'm not actively using it?
>> I'll end my criticism with a more positive statement. I know you guys >> at ESI because you've been part of code4lib from the beginning... you >> gave the first keynotes, you hosted the second event, you've been >> corporate sponsors for years. I don't doubt your commitment to >> code4lib as an event or a group of people or whatever and I don't >> believe your intentions aren't good. Instead I'll just ask: please >> consider removing these restrictions from your scholarship program. >> Instead you might consider adding to the existing scholarship program, >> the diversity and minority scholarships. These could include people >> who might be your customers some day but aren't right now, and your >> potential reach in an act of community support would be much broader.
>> I wouldn't have any objection to corporations sponsoring scholarships; >> essentially, we already do that now with OSU and DLF. If the list of >> organizations grew much further, we might consider handling it >> differently, but it seems to have worked well in the past and I think >> you'd be strengthening it into the future.
> Although on further reflection (10 seconds later!), I'd point out the scholarship does not require the institution to be running "a particular" piece of software. It requires them to be running or actively committed to moving towards either of TWO pieces of software, Evergreen OR Koha. And further point out that it does NOT require them to be an ESI customer, which is nice.
> I'd still rather that C4L scholarships were offered without these restrictions, for most of the same reasons Dan said. But I don't think it's a huge deal. If a vendor were offering scholarships to only their customers, it would bother me much more, but even still.... But I have no desire to prevent anyone from offering scholarships to C4L on whatever grounds.
> It doesn't bother me at all, however, to connect "commitment to open source" with C4L scholarships, in theory.
> On 12/1/2011 3:55 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> I agree, I think. Although I don't think we have or would want any way to PREVENT someone from offering scholarships to C4Lconf on whatever grounds they might choose, I would have the same feedback as Dan to Equinox, who I know is interested in our feedback (whcih doesn't mean they'll automatically do what we say, naturally).
>> On 12/1/2011 3:47 PM, D Chudnov wrote: >>> Is it just me or does something seem wrong to anyone else about this?
>>> - it requires applicants to be at an institution running a particular >>> piece of software >>> - it connects "commitment to open source" to code4lib in an arbitrary way >>> - it emphasizes institution in a way we generally frown upon
>>> If you care to read further, I'll explain a little more.
>>> I come to code4lib thinking of it as a strong collection of >>> individuals. I prefer to emphasize the connections I make with >>> people, rather than the organization they represent, because most >>> years a good chunk of the people have changed employers anyway. For >>> example, this year will be my seventh code4lib and my name tag will >>> show my fourth institution in that time span. I'd like to think that >>> when I see old friends or meet new ones each year that people remember >>> me and what I've done more than who I work for, and I try to do the >>> same for others. Surely not everybody agrees or even shares these >>> values but I don't think I'm too far off from something that some of >>> you do agree about.
>>> When issues of corporate sponsorship come up, we tend as a group to >>> err on the side of caution. We don't have an exhibit hall; we don't >>> do "view from the vendors" corporate/product update panels; we don't >>> even support corporate-sponsored social events, although that one's >>> been a fine line. We discourage "product pitch" talks, and when they >>> do sneak in we tell the speakers after (or at least I do, and I know >>> I'm not alone) "send your engineers to talk about your code, leave >>> your sales pitches at home" or something like that, albeit politely >>> and preferably over beers. When we do take money from corporate >>> sponsors, we apply it as broadly as possible - against overall >>> expenses, to keep registration costs down for everybody who attends. >>> And we *do* take sponsorship money from corporations whether they >>> produce FLOSS or proprietary software, so while there might be an >>> overall bias towards open source, we don't disallow registrations from >>> attendees who come from any particular organizations or who use or >>> don't use (or misuse) any particular products.
>>> Our scholarship programs encourage first-time attendees and people in >>> groups who are underrepresented at code4lib, and this is something >>> that I presume most everybody agrees similarly benefits every single >>> person who attends.
>>> So I dislike the idea of a scholarship that depends on someone's >>> organizational affiliation. Why should I be disqualified from >>> applying if my organization doesn't use it? Why wouldn't every other >>> software vendor want to do the same thing? Are we going to reserve >>> 20-30 spots each for people using specific software packages? And >>> what about people who aren't employed?
>>> I dislike the idea of tying the scholarship to commitment to open >>> source because it's totally arbitrary, and it feels like a political >>> test. I like when I get into arguments with people at code4lib or on >>> this list (and boy howdy I hope I'm starting a good argument here) or >>> code4lib irc because we disagree about things that matter like this. >>> If you care about code and you care about libraries I want you to have >>> a chance to go to code4lib whether you work for the biggest >>> proprietary vendor in the world or whether you're a high schooler >>> who's never had a real job in a library but hacks on some random cool >>> library app as a volunteer at your local public library. How you >>> write code for your library is what I want to learn about, whether I >>> agree with your approach or not.
>>> And I dislike the "currently running one of these applications" >>> requirement because sometimes those decisions are institutional ones, >>> not individual ones. What if I really want to run one of these but my >>> organization won't let me, but I want to go to code4lib to learn more >>> about it so I can make a better case for it back home? Would I be >>> disqualified because I'm not actively using it?
>>> I'll end my criticism with a more positive statement. I know you guys >>> at ESI because you've been part of code4lib from the beginning... you >>> gave the first keynotes, you hosted the second event, you've been >>> corporate sponsors for years. I don't doubt your commitment to >>> code4lib as an event or a group of people or whatever and I don't >>> believe your intentions aren't good. Instead I'll just ask: please >>> consider removing these restrictions from your scholarship program. >>> Instead you might consider adding to the existing scholarship program, >>> the diversity and minority scholarships. These could include people >>> who might be your customers some day but aren't right now, and your >>> potential reach in an act of community support would be much broader.
>>> I wouldn't have any objection to corporations sponsoring scholarships; >>> essentially, we already do that now with OSU and DLF. If the list of >>> organizations grew much further, we might consider handling it >>> differently, but it seems to have worked well in the past and I think >>> you'd be strengthening it into the future.
>>> Thanks for hearing me out.
>>> Much love, -Dan
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "code4libcon" group. > To post to this group, send email to code4libcon@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to code4libcon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/code4libcon?hl=en.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Beanworks <beanwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Um, am I reading this right? "The awardees will also receive free registration to Code4Lib"
> Did they grab a block of registrations or something?
No, we have not -- a recipient of one of our scholarships must (have, by now) register the normal way. We have no special claim or reservation on slots.
Regards,
Galen -- Galen "Equinox hat is currently on" Charlton g...@esilibrary.com
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > It doesn't bother me at all, however, to connect "commitment to open source" > with C4L scholarships, in theory.
And we make no apologies for connecting a commitment to open source to _our_ C4L scholarships. I make no presumption that C4L as a whole is only concerned with open source software for libraries, nor do I have any objection to the selection criteria of any of the other past and current C4L scholarships. However, since we're a service provider for F/OSS for libraries, and since open source certainly doesn't contradict C4L's mission statement (TINMS), while I appreciate that some prefer that the scholarships be unrestricted -- we're going to stick with offering ours with criteria consistent with our mission.
Regards,
Galen -- Galen "Equinox hat is currently on" Charlton g...@esilibrary.com
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jonathan Rochkind<rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: >> It doesn't bother me at all, however, to connect "commitment to open source" >> with C4L scholarships, in theory. > And we make no apologies for connecting a commitment to open source to > _our_ C4L scholarships. I make no presumption that C4L as a whole is > only concerned with open source software for libraries, nor do I have > any objection to the selection criteria of any of the other past and > current C4L scholarships. However, since we're a service provider for > F/OSS for libraries, and since open source certainly doesn't > contradict C4L's mission statement (TINMS), while I appreciate that > some prefer that the scholarships be unrestricted -- we're going to > stick with offering ours with criteria consistent with our mission.
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Beanworks <beanwo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Um, am I reading this right? "The awardees will also receive free registration to Code4Lib"
>> Did they grab a block of registrations or something?
> No, we have not -- a recipient of one of our scholarships must (have, > by now) register the normal way. We have no special claim or > reservation on slots.
> Regards,
> Galen > -- > Galen "Equinox hat is currently on" Charlton > g...@esilibrary.com
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "code4libcon" group. > To post to this group, send email to code4libcon@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to code4libcon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/code4libcon?hl=en.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Beanworks <beanwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Obviously read it wrong. Sorry!
No worries -- that wording was slightly ambiguous, and after I check on a detail, we'll send out a clarification stating that an applicant needs to have an active registration.
Just to supply some info relevant to this discussion, ESI approached me some time back specifically to sponsor the gender/diversity scholarships. However, those scholarships were already fully funded (simply adding to this wasn't a good idea for reasons I won't go into here). They wanted to identify another group of individuals that would benefit from attending and also enrich the conference and came up with the scholarship that you see.
I encouraged their idea based on the logic that anything that gets more people working under the hood is a good thing. The viability of an open source ILS is a direct function of the number of people who can actually work with it -- no responsible library can go down this path unless they can reasonably expect to maintain this mission critical software and few institutions have that capability.
If the exact same scholarship had been offered by an academic or nonprofit with an interest in EG, I hope the community reaction would be that it's good to encourage expertise outside their organization in a system that has major implications for libraries.
The scholarship requirements are not steep, and they're trying to help public libraries and institutions under financial duress which is not a bad thing given that c4l is dominated by academics. In any case, having different kinds of scholarships which promote different kinds of participation is a healthy thing.
Especially given the current politicized environment around Koha, I think setting an explicitly broader scope, along the lines suggested by Dan, would reflect well on Equinox. And there's nothing wrong with seeking to do things that reflect well on a company.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:47 PM, D Chudnov wrote:
> Is it just me or does something seem wrong to anyone else about this?
> - it requires applicants to be at an institution running a particular > piece of software > - it connects "commitment to open source" to code4lib in an arbitrary way > - it emphasizes institution in a way we generally frown upon
Eric Hellman President, Gluejar, Inc. 41 Watchung Plaza, #132 Montclair, NJ 07042 USA
Funding public library attendees would be a really good idea--but I don't see anything in the call about that (though I'm sure most public libraries are 'underfunded libraries or libraries in budget crisis').
It seems strange to me to offer scholarships like this after the registration lottery: it mainly helps those who don't have work funding but are already planning to come.
-Jodi
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Kyle Banerjee <kyle.baner...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Just to supply some info relevant to this discussion, ESI approached me > some time back specifically to sponsor the gender/diversity scholarships. > However, those scholarships were already fully funded (simply adding to > this wasn't a good idea for reasons I won't go into here). They wanted to > identify another group of individuals that would benefit from attending > and also enrich the conference and came up with the scholarship that you > see.
> I encouraged their idea based on the logic that anything that gets more > people working under the hood is a good thing. The viability of an open > source ILS is a direct function of the number of people who can actually > work with it -- no responsible library can go down this path unless they > can reasonably expect to maintain this mission critical software and few > institutions have that capability.
> If the exact same scholarship had been offered by an academic or nonprofit > with an interest in EG, I hope the community reaction would be that it's > good to encourage expertise outside their organization in a system that has > major implications for libraries.
> The scholarship requirements are not steep, and they're trying to help > public libraries and institutions under financial duress which is not a bad > thing given that c4l is dominated by academics. In any case, having > different kinds of scholarships which promote different kinds of > participation is a healthy thing.
> kyle
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "code4libcon" group. > To post to this group, send email to code4libcon@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > code4libcon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/code4libcon?hl=en.
You know, the more I think about it, the LESS I have any problem with it, the more I like it. So I guess I don't agree with you dchud, sorry!
Thanks ESI. And thanks for not requiring the people be ESI customers or anything, that would be sketchier. I also am not sure what I'd think if the conf gave reserved spots to this scholarship (not sure I'd have a problem, I'm just not sure), but without that, I've got absolutely no problem with it.
> Just to supply some info relevant to this discussion, ESI approached > me some time back specifically to sponsor the gender/diversity > scholarships. However, those scholarships were already fully funded > (simply adding to this wasn't a good idea for reasons I won't go into > here). They wanted to identify another group of individuals that > would benefit from attending and also enrich the conference and came > up with the scholarship that you see.
> I encouraged their idea based on the logic that anything that gets > more people working under the hood is a good thing. The viability of > an open source ILS is a direct function of the number of people who > can actually work with it -- no responsible library can go down this > path unless they can reasonably expect to maintain this mission > critical software and few institutions have that capability.
> If the exact same scholarship had been offered by an academic or > nonprofit with an interest in EG, I hope the community reaction would > be that it's good to encourage expertise outside their organization in > a system that has major implications for libraries.
> The scholarship requirements are not steep, and they're trying to help > public libraries and institutions under financial duress which is not > a bad thing given that c4l is dominated by academics. In any case, > having different kinds of scholarships which promote different kinds > of participation is a healthy thing.
> kyle
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "code4libcon" group. > To post to this group, send email to code4libcon@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > code4libcon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/code4libcon?hl=en.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Jodi Schneider <jschnei...@pobox.com> wrote: > It seems strange to me to offer scholarships like this after the > registration lottery: it mainly helps those who don't have work funding but > are already planning to come.
That has now changed, at least for one slot -- we had (*cough*) forgotten that as part of our general sponsorship of the conference, Equinox was getting a registration slot anway. We're now using that slot for the scholarship, hence the repost of the announcement that I'm sending out today.
