I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I thought this would be something we would mull over much later but theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
novice; intermediate; expert
So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
Meet again for an afternoon plenary
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
Cheers, ./fxk
-- All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely than others. -- Alan Truscott
> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who > were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
Can you clarify?
I don't know of anyone that _wants_ multiple tracks.
On the other hand, some people want a bigger conference, and reluctantly agree that a bigger conference neccesarily means multiple tracks. (And I can respect that). Is that what you mean?
I'm pretty opposed to dividing people up on 'novice', 'intermediate', or 'expert'. Part of the good of code4lib is mixing these all up; and people that are novice on one thing are expert on another; and people who may think they are novice may really be expert and vice versa.
Tracks could possibly be divided up on topic matter instead. But again, part of what I think many of us like on code4lib is not segregating ourselves like this, and I'm not sure we'd know what the 'topics' would be. (And then accept proposals that need to be targetted toward a 'topic', and only accept so many per topic?)
I wonder, if the conference is to be bigger, neccesitating multiple simultaneous presentations since not everyone can fit in a room at once.... just divide em more or less randomly? If we could accept 30 proposals this year in one big room, accept 60 in two big rooms instead, and just divide the 60 up between the two rooms more or less arbitrarily? At any given time, you'd have two presentations avail, and you'd go to the one you found most interesting. But this would mean people switching back and forth rooms a lot, which can be inconvenient in a very large room; plus, with only 20 minute presentations, it's probably hard to keep them synchronized between the two rooms, so that would make it harder to switch back and forth too.
Hmm, so maybe that won't work.
I'm not sure. I can respect if people want a larger conference, and that that means something other than everyone in the same room at once... but I still really don't like splitting people between 'novice' and 'expert', while that might work in a conference focused on a very specific technology (a programming language, a CMS), I don't think it works at all in a conference based on a 'community' or 'domain' involving many technologies and many areas of work, like ours. It's not at all clear who's 'novice' and who's 'expert'.
But I'm not sure what would work. Maybe it's topic-based tracks after all, as much as I don't like that either, it's better than novice/expert.
I guess maybe I'd like to hear from the people strongly advocating for a bigger conference, like dchud, what their ideas are for how to handle a larger conference where everyone can't be in the same room at once, how you split people up.
> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a > model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
> novice; intermediate; expert
> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy > to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local > staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
There is no person who is "expert" in every topic presented at code4lib. There would need to be multiple tracks for each *topic* session, and that simply doesn't make sense. It makes sense for Python. It doesn't make sense for the breadth we cover.
Also, I'm not sure how your unscientific roundup missed how centrally and critically important the single-trackness is. Dan mentioned it in the first keynote and Tara mentioned it as a feature that code4lib derived from Access. There has been more consistency and agreement on this point than most of the other structural decisions regarding the conference.
For clarification, perhaps you would care to categorize the talks we saw this year by which of the 3 levels you think they belonged in. And then please also propose who you think was available to have presented the same topic at the other two levels, if anyone.
I am totally disinterested in seeing code4lib adopt a single-topic conference model. IMHO, going entirely multi-track is an even worse idea than unlimited size.
--Joe
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa <francis.kay...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort > of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I > thought this would be something we would mull over much later but > theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who > were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a > model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
> novice; intermediate; expert
> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire > group
> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy > to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local > staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
> Cheers, > ./fxk
> -- > All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely > than others. > -- Alan Truscott
> -- > 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.
I'd like code4lib to keep a single-track format (one talk at a time).
That said, I think there's room for innovation in how we choose talks. We might want to vary the criteria (as was done a number of years ago) to ensure that we have a variety of topics and styles of material covered -- which would keep our voting style, but constrain it somewhat, within categories.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Joe Atzberger <ohioc...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is no person who is "expert" in every topic presented at code4lib. > There would need to be multiple tracks for each *topic* session, and that > simply doesn't make sense. It makes sense for Python. It doesn't make > sense for the breadth we cover.
> Also, I'm not sure how your unscientific roundup missed how centrally and > critically important the single-trackness is. Dan mentioned it in the > first keynote and Tara mentioned it as a feature that code4lib derived from > Access. There has been more consistency and agreement on this point than > most of the other structural decisions regarding the conference.
> For clarification, perhaps you would care to categorize the talks we saw > this year by which of the 3 levels you think they belonged in. And then > please also propose who you think was available to have presented the same > topic at the other two levels, if anyone.
> I am totally disinterested in seeing code4lib adopt a single-topic > conference model. IMHO, going entirely multi-track is an even worse idea > than unlimited size.
> --Joe
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa <francis.kay...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort >> of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I >> thought this would be something we would mull over much later but >> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who >> were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
>> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a >> model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
>> novice; intermediate; expert
>> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire >> group
>> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
>> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy >> to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local >> staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
>> Cheers, >> ./fxk
>> -- >> All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely >> than others. >> -- Alan Truscott
>> -- >> 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 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.
> I'd like code4lib to keep a single-track format (one talk at a time).
> That said, I think there's room for innovation in how we choose talks. > We might want to vary the criteria (as was done a number of years ago) > to ensure that we have a variety of topics and styles of material > covered -- which would keep our voting style, but constrain it > somewhat, within categories.
So I think you're talking about at least two distinct issues, that it would be good to keep unmuddled.
If you want to keep a single track (and if we can), but you want to vary the criteria/voting to ensure more diverse topics/styles... you're saying that you think the last conference did not have diverse enough topics/styles? If so, that's really a different issue (although it may be legit).
The issue I think Frances is addressing is, well, the problem is it's kind of conflicting:
* Some people (perhaps even many, maybe even most, it's hard to say, but probably not a supermajority consensus) want the conference to be bigger.
* Most (perhaps even a super-majority consensus, I have an entirely different perception than Frances) like the single track program.
* It is entirely unclear how to reconcile these two things.
I have no idea how to either. (and changing our criteria or voting procedures won't help) I think we really need some of the "conference must be bigger" advocates to share their ideas. Perhaps the conference-must-be-bigger advocates do agree that means giving up single-track? Then I think it's up to them to come up with ideas of ways to structure multi-track that will work. Perhaps the conference-must-be-bigger advocates think we can keep a single track? Then they have to tell us how! (get an even more ginormous room? Is the United Center available? Kidding.)
I can totally respect that many people want the conference to be bigger, and that this might be the right move. But the issue of 'okay, then what do we do with the program?' is just the first obstacle, and one that it seems nobody has any idea of what to do about.
Many people will want to go to simultaneously scheduled sessions if we multi-track - no matter how we decide to multi-track. Also, the topics where I might be considered a presenter / contributor generally don't produce my biggest take home knowledge. Dunno if that's true for others, but it's decidedly true for me.
Personally, I get a lot more out of the talks than out of the break outs. I could see us single-tracked for talks in a big enough room, and just have longer breaks and BOF gatherings at the breaks … rather than the true breakouts.
I also get a lot out of finding a particular person and just talking, a side effect of being at any conference. I might have questions for Tom Burton-West. Or I might want to establish a face-to-face relationship with someone I only know from email. Or someone might want to talk to me after hearing my presentation. These are the key meetings for me, not the breakouts.
There are technologies we can use to figure out who is interested in what, and who has expertise, blah blah. We can even do that ahead of time and set up breakouts or topic oriented dinners or whatever. We can pre-conference such "breakout-y" topics - pre-conf is more successful than post-conf for loose discussions; post-conf could work for specific meetings with specific players (e.g. "Code4Lib 2014 committees") or structured training sessions with presenters/traininers (e.g. blacklight or git or oclc this year).
This might be a useful site for registering ideas for topics, and then having people indicate which our most useful:
> I'd like code4lib to keep a single-track format (one talk at a time).
> That said, I think there's room for innovation in how we choose talks. We might want to vary the criteria (as was done a number of years ago) to ensure that we have a variety of topics and styles of material covered -- which would keep our voting style, but constrain it somewhat, within categories.
> What say ye?
> -Jodi
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Joe Atzberger <ohioc...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is no person who is "expert" in every topic presented at code4lib. There would need to be multiple tracks for each *topic* session, and that simply doesn't make sense. It makes sense for Python. It doesn't make sense for the breadth we cover.
> Also, I'm not sure how your unscientific roundup missed how centrally and critically important the single-trackness is. Dan mentioned it in the first keynote and Tara mentioned it as a feature that code4lib derived from Access. There has been more consistency and agreement on this point than most of the other structural decisions regarding the conference.
> For clarification, perhaps you would care to categorize the talks we saw this year by which of the 3 levels you think they belonged in. And then please also propose who you think was available to have presented the same topic at the other two levels, if anyone.
> I am totally disinterested in seeing code4lib adopt a single-topic conference model. IMHO, going entirely multi-track is an even worse idea than unlimited size.
> --Joe
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa <francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote: > I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort > of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I > thought this would be something we would mull over much later but > theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who > were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a > model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
> novice; intermediate; expert
> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy > to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local > staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
> Cheers, > ./fxk
> -- > All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely > than others. > -- Alan Truscott
> -- > 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 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 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.
>> I'd like code4lib to keep a single-track format (one talk at a time).
>> That said, I think there's room for innovation in how we choose talks. We might want to vary the criteria (as was done a number of years ago) to ensure that we have a variety of topics and styles of material covered -- which would keep our voting style, but constrain it somewhat, within categories.
> So I think you're talking about at least two distinct issues, that it would be good to keep unmuddled.
> If you want to keep a single track (and if we can), but you want to vary the criteria/voting to ensure more diverse topics/styles... you're saying that you think the last conference did not have diverse enough topics/styles? If so, that's really a different issue (although it may be legit).
> The issue I think Frances is addressing is, well, the problem is it's kind of conflicting:
> * Some people (perhaps even many, maybe even most, it's hard to say, but probably not a supermajority consensus) want the conference to be bigger.
> * Most (perhaps even a super-majority consensus, I have an entirely different perception than Frances) like the single track program.
> * It is entirely unclear how to reconcile these two things.
No, I don't think it is. You can single track with a bigger space - an auditorium (e.g. campus lecture space during spring break). Big conferences often have a single track plenary before they split into multiple tracks -- we can just stay single tracked. This is logistics. Non-trivial, but ultimately logistics (money, timing, finding a space, etc.) Honestly, we could do everything else the same. Same number of talks. Same voting mechanism.
If we want more talks / more topics, THEN we need to change more things. Length of conference or multi-tracked or taking stuff out of schedule to make room or ...
> I have no idea how to either. (and changing our criteria or voting procedures won't help) I think we really need some of the "conference must be bigger" advocates to share their ideas. Perhaps the conference-must-be-bigger advocates do agree that means giving up single-track? Then I think it's up to them to come up with ideas of ways to structure multi-track that will work. Perhaps the conference-must-be-bigger advocates think we can keep a single track? Then they have to tell us how! (get an even more ginormous room? Is the United Center available? Kidding.)
> I can totally respect that many people want the conference to be bigger, and that this might be the right move. But the issue of 'okay, then what do we do with the program?' is just the first obstacle, and one that it seems nobody has any idea of what to do about.
> -- > 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.
Aside from the fact that I don't feel that we should have tracks, I don't think that novice/intermediate/expert would be a good way to divide them, if we had to have them.
Python is a language, and is the subject of PyCon. Since PyCon is about seeing what folks can do with Python, those tracks almost make sense for them. Code4Lib is very different.
The outstanding question for the future of Code4Lib is: Are we going to dumb it down. Next question is: If we do that, then will there still be a there there? I am all for expanding so that everyone who is interested in building software for libraries can go to the Con. I am not for expanding the content to be all things for all people. To me, that would make Code4Lib a conference that would be perfect for nobody.
Having run a conference with 6-8 tracks for about 3,000 folks (DrupalCon), I have a pretty good sense of how most attendees choose sessions. They go to hear folks they have heard of, talking about things they know about.
To me, the appeal of Code4Lib is that, for three days, I get to sit and hear folks I often don't know, talking about things that I didn't know that I wanted to know about. By the time I leave, I usually have a stack of new ideas and inspiration to get me though the next year. I don't think that this would work for me if it weren't for the fact that there was a base assumption that everyone knew something about code and something about the parts of librarianship that intersect code. The length of the talks -- 20 minutes and 5 minutes -- makes it easy to deal with the occasional session that is either way over my head or just way out of my realm.
We have been running about 3,000 attendees for DrupalCon, and our biggest room has held about 800, so I am pretty sure that we could make a one room conference of up to that size work.
Thanks,
Cary
On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa wrote:
> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort > of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I > thought this would be something we would mull over much later but > theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who > were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a > model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
> novice; intermediate; expert
> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy > to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local > staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
> Cheers, > ./fxk
> -- > All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely > than others. > -- Alan Truscott
> -- > 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.
I'm indifferent when it comes to both increasing the size of the conference and to splitting it into tracks. However, if we are to split it, one option would be to split on either side of the 4 in Code4Lib. I see that most people who come into Code4lib come from either a software focused world into libraries or a library focused world into software. (I am from the former.) The "Lib" track could then be for people who want a little more MLS in their presentations and/or more introductory programming information. Conversely, the "Code" track could provide introductory MLS and/or more advanced programming.
<francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote: > I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort > of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I > thought this would be something we would mull over much later but > theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who > were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a > model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
> novice; intermediate; expert
> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy > to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local > staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
> Cheers, > ./fxk
> -- > All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely > than others. > -- Alan Truscott
> -- > 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.
Yes, but my favorites are the ones with advanced programming AND advanced library domain stuff! Cause, where else can you get that BUT code4lib?
The single track in a ginormous room idea is an interesting one, although it's unclear if the chicago hosts can possibly accomodate that or not. (including the wifi and power, heh).
It might be interested to put up some polls?
* Do you want code4lib conf to be larger? Y/N * do you prefer [single track] or [multi track] program format? * If you prefer single track, and we had to sacrifice the single track program format to make the conf larger, would it be worth it? Y/N
Of course, even if #3 won, it's still not clear how to do that in a way that doesn't suck. (And I am _not_ suggesting that the conference hosts should be _bound_ by whatever such polls say, merely that it would be additional information for them to use in trying to make the kind of conf people want. Some community preferences can't be met, or have unpleasant side effects the voters weren't anticipating. We count on the hosts to make the actual calls as to this sort of thing. Ie, "do exactly what your users tell you to in the way they told you to do it" is seldom a good way of architecting your code or conference, heh.).
One downside of keeping single track but making it signfiicantly larger would be lowering the percentage of participants who present. Code4Lib has always had some pride in having as large a portion of participants as possible present at some point (lightning or presentation). But if we are to make it larger (which we may or may not), _something_ has got to give, we obviously can't keep it "just the way it has been but bigger", heh.
> I'm indifferent when it comes to both increasing the size of the > conference and to splitting it into tracks. However, if we are to > split it, one option would be to split on either side of the 4 in > Code4Lib. I see that most people who come into Code4lib come from > either a software focused world into libraries or a library focused > world into software. (I am from the former.) The "Lib" track could > then be for people who want a little more MLS in their presentations > and/or more introductory programming information. Conversely, the > "Code" track could provide introductory MLS and/or more advanced > programming.
> /dev
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa > <francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort >> of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I >> thought this would be something we would mull over much later but >> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who >> were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
>> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a >> model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
>> novice; intermediate; expert
>> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
>> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
>> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy >> to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local >> staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
>> Cheers, >> ./fxk
>> -- >> All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely >> than others. >> -- Alan Truscott
>> -- >> 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.
I agree that it's unfair to ask our Chicago hosts to change the format unless they want to. I think we should target the following year for significant changes.
One way we get more presenters is with lightning talks. I would favor more lightening talks over breakouts, personally.
And I also agree with Devon that it's generally the most "famous" people that draw the biggest audience (and votes). This year I was, like, "seriously? people are that interested in hearing about software development methodology that's been around for a long time? That Emily Lynema talked about 2010? Seriously?" But I got votes and did my best to make the presentation interesting and useful. (I don't think of myself as "famous," either -- I'm just vocal and comfortable presenting.)
- Naomi
On Feb 22, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Yes, but my favorites are the ones with advanced programming AND advanced library domain stuff! Cause, where else can you get that BUT code4lib?
> The single track in a ginormous room idea is an interesting one, although it's unclear if the chicago hosts can possibly accomodate that or not. (including the wifi and power, heh).
> It might be interested to put up some polls?
> * Do you want code4lib conf to be larger? Y/N > * do you prefer [single track] or [multi track] program format? > * If you prefer single track, and we had to sacrifice the single track program format to make the conf larger, would it be worth it? Y/N
> Of course, even if #3 won, it's still not clear how to do that in a way that doesn't suck. (And I am _not_ suggesting that the conference hosts should be _bound_ by whatever such polls say, merely that it would be additional information for them to use in trying to make the kind of conf people want. Some community preferences can't be met, or have unpleasant side effects the voters weren't anticipating. We count on the hosts to make the actual calls as to this sort of thing. Ie, "do exactly what your users tell you to in the way they told you to do it" is seldom a good way of architecting your code or conference, heh.).
> One downside of keeping single track but making it signfiicantly larger would be lowering the percentage of participants who present. Code4Lib has always had some pride in having as large a portion of participants as possible present at some point (lightning or presentation). But if we are to make it larger (which we may or may not), _something_ has got to give, we obviously can't keep it "just the way it has been but bigger", heh.
> Jonathan
> On 2/22/2012 6:37 PM, Devon wrote: >> I'm indifferent when it comes to both increasing the size of the >> conference and to splitting it into tracks. However, if we are to >> split it, one option would be to split on either side of the 4 in >> Code4Lib. I see that most people who come into Code4lib come from >> either a software focused world into libraries or a library focused >> world into software. (I am from the former.) The "Lib" track could >> then be for people who want a little more MLS in their presentations >> and/or more introductory programming information. Conversely, the >> "Code" track could provide introductory MLS and/or more advanced >> programming.
>> /dev
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa >> <francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort >>> of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I >>> thought this would be something we would mull over much later but >>> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who >>> were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
>>> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a >>> model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
>>> novice; intermediate; expert
>>> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
>>> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
>>> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy >>> to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local >>> staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
>>> Cheers, >>> ./fxk
>>> -- >>> All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely >>> than others. >>> -- Alan Truscott
>>> -- >>> 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 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.
As I think a little more about it, I think I'd rather every host take a stand, develop a vision for the conference, and run with it without regard for what everyone else wants. Really Jobs the conference up. Bearing in mind, of course, that some minority will hate whatever you do, some minority will love it, and most won't care.
Francis, I speak for no one but myself, but I encourage you to round up your crew, figure out what you want the conference to be, what would really grab your attention, and make it happen. Borrow wisely from the past, but don't be bound by it. Feel free to try something really different.
I've come to this for a few reasons. 1) No one else stood up to host, so there's really only so much complaining to be done. 2) Instead of people speculating about what they might or might not like, I'd rather people be able to base their opinions on a concrete experience. 3) I think a conference with some character will be more engaging than the conference-by-committee approach we've adopted.
That seems like it might be more burden than a host may be up for. So, you know, whatever. If you're interested, Francis, hit me up off-list and we can talk about it.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > Yes, but my favorites are the ones with advanced programming AND advanced > library domain stuff! Cause, where else can you get that BUT code4lib?
> The single track in a ginormous room idea is an interesting one, although > it's unclear if the chicago hosts can possibly accomodate that or not. > (including the wifi and power, heh).
> It might be interested to put up some polls?
> * Do you want code4lib conf to be larger? Y/N > * do you prefer [single track] or [multi track] program format? > * If you prefer single track, and we had to sacrifice the single track > program format to make the conf larger, would it be worth it? Y/N
> Of course, even if #3 won, it's still not clear how to do that in a way that > doesn't suck. (And I am _not_ suggesting that the conference hosts should be > _bound_ by whatever such polls say, merely that it would be additional > information for them to use in trying to make the kind of conf people want. > Some community preferences can't be met, or have unpleasant side effects the > voters weren't anticipating. We count on the hosts to make the actual calls > as to this sort of thing. Ie, "do exactly what your users tell you to in the > way they told you to do it" is seldom a good way of architecting your code > or conference, heh.).
> One downside of keeping single track but making it signfiicantly larger > would be lowering the percentage of participants who present. Code4Lib has > always had some pride in having as large a portion of participants as > possible present at some point (lightning or presentation). But if we are to > make it larger (which we may or may not), _something_ has got to give, we > obviously can't keep it "just the way it has been but bigger", heh.
> Jonathan
> On 2/22/2012 6:37 PM, Devon wrote:
>> I'm indifferent when it comes to both increasing the size of the >> conference and to splitting it into tracks. However, if we are to >> split it, one option would be to split on either side of the 4 in >> Code4Lib. I see that most people who come into Code4lib come from >> either a software focused world into libraries or a library focused >> world into software. (I am from the former.) The "Lib" track could >> then be for people who want a little more MLS in their presentations >> and/or more introductory programming information. Conversely, the >> "Code" track could provide introductory MLS and/or more advanced >> programming.
>> /dev
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa >> <francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort >>> of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I >>> thought this would be something we would mull over much later but >>> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who >>> were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
>>> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a >>> model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
>>> novice; intermediate; expert
>>> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire >>> group
>>> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
>>> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
>>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>>> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy >>> to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local >>> staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
>>> Cheers, >>> ./fxk
>>> -- >>> All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely >>> than others. >>> -- Alan Truscott
I can't imagine what would invoke this scenario. Are we really thinking that we have demand for a 600-1,200 person conference? I am thinking maybe 3-350.
Cary
On Feb 22, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I agree with Cary. I am in favor of the single track for all the reasons cited. Also in favor of allowing more people to attend "as long as it can be still handled by the hosting folks". I would like to see more preconferences and hackfests added - this is actually somewhat like a multitrack by topics for a small conference in my opinion.
Bohyun
On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Cary Gordon <higherm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aside from the fact that I don't feel that we should have tracks, I don't think that novice/intermediate/expert would be a good way to divide them, if we had to have them.
> Python is a language, and is the subject of PyCon. Since PyCon is about seeing what folks can do with Python, those tracks almost make sense for them. Code4Lib is very different.
> The outstanding question for the future of Code4Lib is: Are we going to dumb it down. Next question is: If we do that, then will there still be a there there? I am all for expanding so that everyone who is interested in building software for libraries can go to the Con. I am not for expanding the content to be all things for all people. To me, that would make Code4Lib a conference that would be perfect for nobody.
> Having run a conference with 6-8 tracks for about 3,000 folks (DrupalCon), I have a pretty good sense of how most attendees choose sessions. They go to hear folks they have heard of, talking about things they know about.
> To me, the appeal of Code4Lib is that, for three days, I get to sit and hear folks I often don't know, talking about things that I didn't know that I wanted to know about. By the time I leave, I usually have a stack of new ideas and inspiration to get me though the next year. I don't think that this would work for me if it weren't for the fact that there was a base assumption that everyone knew something about code and something about the parts of librarianship that intersect code. The length of the talks -- 20 minutes and 5 minutes -- makes it easy to deal with the occasional session that is either way over my head or just way out of my realm.
> We have been running about 3,000 attendees for DrupalCon, and our biggest room has held about 800, so I am pretty sure that we could make a one room conference of up to that size work.
> Thanks,
> Cary
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Francis Kayiwa wrote:
>> I realize it is still early days but I promised to outsource this sort >> of thing to the community at large and I like to keep my promises. I >> thought this would be something we would mull over much later but >> theres logistics to contend with. My unscientific survey of people who >> were in Seattle is that we need to have multiple tracks.
>> I can only use the only other similar conference I've attended as a >> model. The tracks at PyCon were divided into
>> novice; intermediate; expert
>> So we would all assemble in the AM for a plenary session for the entire group
>> Divide up into the aforementioned tracks
>> Meet again for an afternoon plenary
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>> I am advocating this as a model for code4lib 2013 but would be happy >> to be told early on that I got it all wrong in order to tell our local >> staff the size and number of rooms we would need.
>> Cheers, >> ./fxk
>> -- >> All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely >> than others. >> -- Alan Truscott
>> -- >> 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 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.
Thanks all and I clearly need to diversify who I dine with chat with. rockhind@ was able to articulate my thinking better than I however. -Go figure-
The question arose mostly to address a logistical question of.
`Do we really need just one room?` `Seems odd for that to be the only requirement for 500+ people`
As an aside to highermath@ and Bohyun last year 490+ people attempted to register so your 300 may be a tad conservative even allowing that we've pissed of some people permanently.
Since we are attempting to solve a `rubber hits road` problem I will attempt to restate my question.
We plan to get Illinois AB and the question then becomes do we need Fort Dearborn A & B? I instinctively said yes because better to have too much than deal with the fire marshall (This is still Chicago!) If however we are going to be one track and in one room it seems like an unneeded expense and at most perhaps get Illinois C.
Finally even if United Center was available (Bulls and Hawks guarantee that it won't be) it is in too dodgy a part of town to ever want to have people there.
That said I will pass your responses own to our local planners with apologies for misrepresenting code4lib as expecting to be multi-track.
./fxk
-- Charm is a way of getting the answer "Yes" -- without having asked any clear question.
> We plan to get Illinois AB and the question then becomes do we need > Fort Dearborn A & B? I instinctively said yes because better to have > too much than deal with the fire marshall (This is still Chicago!) If > however we are going to be one track and in one room it seems like an > unneeded expense and at most perhaps get Illinois C.
Respectfully, I think you are already running into problems. I'm looking at the room capacities (http://www.uic.edu/depts/meetings/docs/3rd%20floor%20conference%20cen...) and Illinois A/B only seats 300 people classroom-style (http://www.uic.edu/depts/meetings/docs/illinoisabc/Classroom%20Illino...). I'm not sure how you could effectively add Illinois C and Fort Dearborn A/B to the seating arrangement and still have one lectern. (One way might be to run the tables diagonally facing the bottom right corner of the Illinois B; that would have the audience spread out in an el-shaped fashion in both Illinois A and Illinois C. The screen would have to be set diagonally in the bottom right corner, and it would have to be huge to be visible from both ends of the el.)
The other thing to consider is where to feed 300+ people. You could set up buffet lines in Fort Dearborn A/B and have people sit back at the classroom-style seating, but you also need to give the catering crew enough time to clean up after lunch. (Unless, of course, you were planning to have lunch somewhere else in the facility.)
Keep bringing ideas to us; we'll keep trying to help bullet-proof them.
Peter -- 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.
One approach would be to at least reserve the entire floor with the thought that, should you go over 300, you could put overflow in the Fort Dearborn area, and, if necessary, in Illinois C. I would try to set up everything classroom style, with the option of doing a hybrid, it the count gets too high.
You would need to run video into the overflow rooms and have a slightly more sophisticated video system that what has been done in the past.
I think that a better approach might be to look for a venue that has a room that would fit the entire show. The City Center Holiday Inn, for example, claims to have a room that holds 550, classroom style. Of course this info is based on two minutes of research, but, having worked on a 3,000 person conference in a Chicago hotel, I do know that there are some big spaces available.
If I were in your position, I would consider hiring a conference planning company like Concentra, who has a reputation for great service in our community, and can take care of all of the grunt work and let you concentrate on the program. They were too small for Drupal, but they would be a good fit here.
Thanks,
Cary
On Feb 22, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Francis Kayiwa wrote:
> Thanks all and I clearly need to diversify who I dine with chat with. > rockhind@ was able to articulate my thinking better than I however. > -Go figure-
> The question arose mostly to address a logistical question of.
> `Do we really need just one room?` > `Seems odd for that to be the only requirement for 500+ people`
> As an aside to highermath@ and Bohyun last year 490+ people attempted > to register so your 300 may be a tad conservative even allowing that > we've pissed of some people permanently.
> Since we are attempting to solve a `rubber hits road` problem I will > attempt to restate my question.
> We plan to get Illinois AB and the question then becomes do we need > Fort Dearborn A & B? I instinctively said yes because better to have > too much than deal with the fire marshall (This is still Chicago!) If > however we are going to be one track and in one room it seems like an > unneeded expense and at most perhaps get Illinois C.
> Finally even if United Center was available (Bulls and Hawks guarantee > that it won't be) it is in too dodgy a part of town to ever want to > have people there.
> That said I will pass your responses own to our local planners with > apologies for misrepresenting code4lib as expecting to be multi-track.
> ./fxk
> -- > Charm is a way of getting the answer "Yes" -- without having asked any > clear question.
> -- > 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.
> Dining would be in the same facility but not the same room.
> -- > Past hissy-fits are not a predictor of future hissy-fits --Nick Holland
> -- > 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 Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Cary Gordon <higherm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Audiorium style would not be very popular. Three days of it, even less so.
We can have 300 seated comfortably with ~200 mad they couldn't get into the conference. Or we can have 499 (I personally wouldn't mind 3 days auditorium style) uncomfortable. We can't have both.
./fxk
-- Malek's Law: Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.
On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Francis Kayiwa wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Cary Gordon <higherm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Audiorium style would not be very popular. Three days of it, even less so.
> We can have 300 seated comfortably with ~200 mad they couldn't get > into the conference. Or we can have 499 (I personally wouldn't mind 3 > days auditorium style) uncomfortable. We can't have both.
Again, respectfully, you need to rethink your plans. Almost everyone has a computing device, some as large as 17" notebooks and some as small as tablets with keyboards. Now visualize 500 people balancing devices on their laps as colleagues move in and out of rows with cups of coffee and glasses of water. Multiply by six hours, then by three days.
I think you are setting yourself up for major logistical problems if you continue on this path.
But, it is still early, so there is time to adjust. A couple of suggestions come to mind: 1) find another venue; 2) try transmitting a couple video feeds (one of speaker, one of slides) to a secondary location in the same building; 3) make 2013 the year that Code4Lib tries a distributed model (cooperate with other sites to do 2-way simulcast of talks, alternating morning to afternoon between sites).
Peter -- 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.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Peter Murray <peter.mur...@lyrasis.org> wrote: > On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Francis Kayiwa wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Cary Gordon <higherm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Audiorium style would not be very popular. Three days of it, even less so.
>> We can have 300 seated comfortably with ~200 mad they couldn't get >> into the conference. Or we can have 499 (I personally wouldn't mind 3 >> days auditorium style) uncomfortable. We can't have both.
> Again, respectfully, you need to rethink your plans. Almost everyone has a computing device, some as large as 17" notebooks and some as small as tablets with keyboards. Now visualize 500 people balancing devices on their laps as colleagues move in and out of rows with cups of coffee and glasses of water. Multiply by six hours, then by three days.
Sorry but what of it? Perhaps my constitution is markedly different from others but when I weigh up angry people left out the door v/s mild discomfort (even for 3 days) I take discomfort while still ceding your point.
> I think you are setting yourself up for major logistical problems if you continue on this path.
There *IS* a reason I am asking in February... nothing is set. We don't want to sign any documents until we have a reasonably PoR (20% upper limit is always my target)
> But, it is still early, so there is time to adjust. A couple of suggestions come to mind: 1) find another venue; 2) try transmitting a couple video feeds (one of speaker, one of slides) to a secondary location in the same building; 3) make 2013 the year that Code4Lib tries a distributed model (cooperate with other sites to do 2-way simulcast of talks, alternating morning to afternoon between sites).
The devil here is in the details which we are glad to take on.
Cheers, ./fxk
-- Past hissy-fits are not a predictor of future hissy-fits --Nick Holland
Gotta agree with Peter on the degree of discomfort in the auditorium style seating. It would not be mild discomfort. I envision riots before the first keynote.
+1 for other options
Carol
Wafted through cyberspace from my iPad
On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Francis Kayiwa <francis.kay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Peter Murray <peter.mur...@lyrasis.org> wrote: >> On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Francis Kayiwa wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Cary Gordon <higherm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Audiorium style would not be very popular. Three days of it, even less so.
>>> We can have 300 seated comfortably with ~200 mad they couldn't get >>> into the conference. Or we can have 499 (I personally wouldn't mind 3 >>> days auditorium style) uncomfortable. We can't have both.
>> Again, respectfully, you need to rethink your plans. Almost everyone has a computing device, some as large as 17" notebooks and some as small as tablets with keyboards. Now visualize 500 people balancing devices on their laps as colleagues move in and out of rows with cups of coffee and glasses of water. Multiply by six hours, then by three days.
> Sorry but what of it? Perhaps my constitution is markedly different > from others but when I weigh up angry people left out the door v/s > mild discomfort (even for 3 days) I take discomfort while still ceding > your point.
>> I think you are setting yourself up for major logistical problems if you continue on this path.
> There *IS* a reason I am asking in February... nothing is set. We > don't want to sign any documents until we have a reasonably PoR (20% > upper limit is always my target)
>> But, it is still early, so there is time to adjust. A couple of suggestions come to mind: 1) find another venue; 2) try transmitting a couple video feeds (one of speaker, one of slides) to a secondary location in the same building; 3) make 2013 the year that Code4Lib tries a distributed model (cooperate with other sites to do 2-way simulcast of talks, alternating morning to afternoon between sites).
> The devil here is in the details which we are glad to take on.
> Cheers, > ./fxk
> -- > Past hissy-fits are not a predictor of future hissy-fits --Nick Holland
> -- > 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, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Beanworks <beanwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gotta agree with Peter on the degree of discomfort in the auditorium style seating. It would not be mild discomfort. I envision riots before the first keynote.
I could probably live with auditorium seating, especially if the chairs had a fold-out desktop.
Would it be possible to do a hybrid setup (half classroom and half auditorium) netting around 400 seats? In theory, this could let those who really wanted tables to have them, but still cram in as many people as possible. Though I worry that it would mostly result in people camping out at the tables to keep their spaces.
Ideally, we should find a larger venue that can accommodate 500 people at tables. But if the choice is 500 in chairs or 300 at tables, I think 500 in chairs would be better.
