500 miles is my recollection as well. Ultimately I don't think we
would reject hosting proposals from sites within that or any range,
would we?
I'm inclined to say a vote by the code4lib community should take
precedence over loose planning group guidelines, but I sense we're
edging perilously close to a "popular vote v. electoral college"
discussion. :)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:56, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote:
> The hosting guidelines (http://code4lib.org/conference/hosting) say "Some distance away from the last conference site, all things being equal". I thought I recall a mileage recommendation on that page, but I don't see it there now. I remember it being something like at least 500 miles from the previous location.
> Peter
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>> Speaking of hosting in 2011, do we have a recommended distance from
>> the current year's conference?
>> Are we expecting a west coast or Canadian location, given the
>> Providence-Asheville history of the past 2 years?
The distance-from-previous discussion falls into "Additional Desirable Qualities" category, and I'm fine with that. And I agree with you Mike: I don't think we should set a firm rule about this; rather just remind the community of our requirements and qualities as individuals make their votes.
Peter
On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Michael J. Giarlo wrote:
> 500 miles is my recollection as well. Ultimately I don't think we > would reject hosting proposals from sites within that or any range, > would we?
> I'm inclined to say a vote by the code4lib community should take > precedence over loose planning group guidelines, but I sense we're > edging perilously close to a "popular vote v. electoral college" > discussion. :)
> -Mike
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:56, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote: >> The hosting guidelines (http://code4lib.org/conference/hosting) say "Some distance away from the last conference site, all things being equal". I thought I recall a mileage recommendation on that page, but I don't see it there now. I remember it being something like at least 500 miles from the previous location.
>> Peter
>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>>> Speaking of hosting in 2011, do we have a recommended distance from >>> the current year's conference?
>>> Are we expecting a west coast or Canadian location, given the >>> Providence-Asheville history of the past 2 years?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Birkin James Diana
<birkin_di...@brown.edu> wrote:
>> What if we changed the voting technique?...
> I'm an STV/IRV evangelist[1] and for a while have wanted to get up an educational voting site sort of like demochoice.org and offer to host some code4lib votes. But while I desire and dabble, Ross executes. :)
Birkin, how have we not collaborated on something yet? I'm a big fan
of STV as well, and I've had a project on the back burner for a while
to provide an STV service for small organizations. Like demochoice
(which I hadn't seen until you mentioned it) but less brutally ugly.
Unfortunately, I'm a dabbler too, but I'm hoping to make some inroads
in the next few months. We'll talk.
Yeah, I mean, it's tricky to change the format, but it's not impossible.
I think the responsibility for doing this is shared in an informal way between the host and the conf planning committee(s). So how would this work? Well:
A host _could_ say in their proposal that they are willing/able to host ONLY if the format is changed in some specifically mentioned way. Then if it gets voted in, the community has decided to try that experiment.
A host could instead say in their proposal that they are _able_ and _interested_ in changing the format, but would also be able to host a traditional format, and they plan to bring this up with the to-be-formed conf planning committee, and if it can be worked out, a format change will be done. Again, if the proposal is voted on, and the subsequent planning committee works out a change, then this will adequately represent community consensus.
Or a host could not mention it at all. Then the subsequent conf planning committee, if they wanted to, could _try_ to suggest a format change, but it might be a complete non-starter if the host is unable or unwilling to provide the neccesary facillities and infrastructure for that.
This is all kind of just the way it goes. There is no one single right way to get general community consensus behind a change, but there are a variety of ways that will more or less do that, and as long as people are trying to do that, then it's all good. That's how C4L works, there are few formal rules for processes, but we do the best we can to serve the community and not impose things in an authoritarian manner. And this has served us well. I also think that in the end the decision comes down to those who are doing the work -- the hosts and planning committee(s). But we expect they won't unexpectedly push something through against the will of the larger community, cause that's not how we do things. So be transparent, get as much input as possible, and get it done, that's what we do.
I think that the value of maximizing participation at C4L is a very good one, regardless of whether or not (mostly not) it's shared by more traditional conferences. So I'd support only allowing one presentation per presenter or something like that. But personally I'm more or less happy with the general format we have now, I'm not personally interested in significantly altering it, although gradual iterative changes here and there are always good. But if those doing the work (the hosts and conf planning committee), want to take on the (non-trivial) work of inventing a whole new format, and much/most of the community thinks this is worth a try (as far as can be told from input on the listserv(s)), then, sure, more power to them.
Michael J. Giarlo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:42, Tim McGeary <timmcge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think there are some things that are stopping a potential 2011 host
>> from proposing a new format. The first is time limitations between now
>> and the 2010 conference when they need to present their ideas to the
>> community. [...]
>> Another is the size. [...]
> Thanks, Tim. I do see these as practical challenges a potential host
> would face when proposing a format change, but I don't see them as
> complete show-stoppers.
> What if, hypothetically, I work out all the usual hosting details with
> my institution with the assumption that the format -- leaving aside
> ecorrado's objections re: conflation of format and host -- would be
> three days of hackfest and unconference? Why would a format change
> impose time constraints beyond the those all potential hosts face?
> It's not as though the host needs to check with the planning group and
> get their okay before putting in a bid, though clearly it'd be in our
> collective best interest if the host and planning group are on the
> same page. Heck, anyone can put on a conference, call it "code4lib"
> and go crazy. But the point is that if I build different format
> assumptions into my hosting proposal and explicitly point out the
> changes, why would it not be "good enough" to let the code4lib voters
> decide?
> None of this is set in stone; there's no code4lib conference charter.
> Maybe we need one, maybe we don't. We have an established tradition
> -- one that has largely worked well for us -- but tradition needn't
> bind us.
>> I saw that someone picked up on my idea to collect a waiting list data
>> of those locked out. What if the demand for this conference is 500
>> people? I know there are some (or many) who don't want to see C4Lcon
>> become too large and multi-tracked, but if 500 people want to come, I
>> think there needs to be very strong and definitive reasons why the
>> conference shouldn't be expanded to meet that demand. I honestly
>> haven't seen those reasons yet. C4L is a very good thing, and I can see
>> why more and more people are coming to the community.
> We discussed this in a breakout in Portland, I believe, and it's been
> a topic of frequent discussion at conferences and on the IRC channel.
> The code4lib conference grew out of a community that coalesced around
> a mailing list and an IRC channel, and was heavily influenced and
> inspired by the Access conference up in Canada. To some extent we've
> followed their lead with regard to the size and format of the
> conference. It is argued that having more than 250 or so attendees
> would strain the single-track format, and is further argued that the
> single-track format is valuable so the conference is a shared
> experience. A 500-person conference feels very different from a
> 200-person conference. I also wonder what would happen to the
> participator-to-observer ratio if we open up the flood gates. Many of
> us want the conference to be more interactive and involve a higher
> percentage of the attendees and that seems tricky to scale.
> I don't have much of a stake in this; I'm just trying to recap the
> rationale as I remember it for you, and hopefully spur others to chime
> in and defend their viewpoints.
>> Some people can't follow IRC at all. There are those of us who are
>> blocked from IRC altogether. The only time I get to follow IRC is at
>> the conference itself.
> I hear you. It's less convenient, but Freenode's newish webchat may
> be an option for folks in the same boat:
> 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.
My recollection matches Mike's that we didn't exclude any proposals, but just recommended that those voting take this into account. I think that is reasonable.
Michael J. Giarlo wrote:
> 500 miles is my recollection as well. Ultimately I don't think we
> would reject hosting proposals from sites within that or any range,
> would we?
> I'm inclined to say a vote by the code4lib community should take
> precedence over loose planning group guidelines, but I sense we're
> edging perilously close to a "popular vote v. electoral college"
> discussion. :)
> -Mike
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:56, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote:
>> The hosting guidelines (http://code4lib.org/conference/hosting) say "Some distance away from the last conference site, all things being equal". I thought I recall a mileage recommendation on that page, but I don't see it there now. I remember it being something like at least 500 miles from the previous location.
>> Peter
>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>>> Speaking of hosting in 2011, do we have a recommended distance from
>>> the current year's conference?
>>> Are we expecting a west coast or Canadian location, given the
>>> Providence-Asheville history of the past 2 years?
> 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.
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> My recollection matches Mike's that we didn't exclude any proposals, but > just recommended that those voting take this into account. I think that > is reasonable.
>> 500 miles is my recollection as well. Ultimately I don't think we
>> would reject hosting proposals from sites within that or any range,
>> would we?
>> I'm inclined to say a vote by the code4lib community should take
>> precedence over loose planning group guidelines, but I sense we're
>> edging perilously close to a "popular vote v. electoral college"
>> discussion. :)
>> -Mike
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:56, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote:
>>> The hosting guidelines (http://code4lib.org/conference/hosting) say "Some distance away from the last conference site, all things being equal". I thought I recall a mileage recommendation on that page, but I don't see it there now. I remember it being something like at least 500 miles from the previous location.
>>> Peter
>>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>>>> Speaking of hosting in 2011, do we have a recommended distance from
>>>> the current year's conference?
>>>> Are we expecting a west coast or Canadian location, given the
>>>> Providence-Asheville history of the past 2 years?
>> 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.
Congratulations, dchud, on hosting a great inaugural "ask anything" session. I thought it went very well. 40 minutes plus 5 minutes of trivia was just the right amount of time. I heard someone suggest that this could also be a way to spawn spontaneous breakout sessions, so if we do this again next year the emcee might want to keep in mind suggesting that option if there seems to be a lot of people interested in a topic.
Peter
On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Gabriel Farrell wrote:
> Dan Chudnov proposed an "ask anything" session for the conference that > would take the place of two planned talks [0]. There has been much > discussion on this issue [1] [2].
> Please post a +1 if you are in favor of an "ask anything" session and > 21 planned talks. Post a -1 if you would like that time allotted to > planned talks, bringing the total to 23. Include commentary on your > vote if you wish.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote: > Congratulations, dchud, on hosting a great inaugural "ask anything" > session. I thought it went very well. 40 minutes plus 5 minutes of trivia > was just the right amount of time. I heard someone suggest that this could > also be a way to spawn spontaneous breakout sessions, so if we do this again > next year the emcee might want to keep in mind suggesting that option if > there seems to be a lot of people interested in a topic.
> Peter
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Gabriel Farrell wrote:
> > Dan Chudnov proposed an "ask anything" session for the conference that > > would take the place of two planned talks [0]. There has been much > > discussion on this issue [1] [2].
> > Please post a +1 if you are in favor of an "ask anything" session and > > 21 planned talks. Post a -1 if you would like that time allotted to > > planned talks, bringing the total to 23. Include commentary on your > > vote if you wish.
Agreed, this was a total hit. I've already added the suggestion that we carve out time for this next year on the "Suggestions for 2011" page on the wiki. Congrats, Dan, on a cool new session that offers yet another way to participate. Roy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote: > Congratulations, dchud, on hosting a great inaugural "ask anything" > session. I thought it went very well. 40 minutes plus 5 minutes of trivia > was just the right amount of time. I heard someone suggest that this could > also be a way to spawn spontaneous breakout sessions, so if we do this again > next year the emcee might want to keep in mind suggesting that option if > there seems to be a lot of people interested in a topic.
> Peter
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Gabriel Farrell wrote:
> > Dan Chudnov proposed an "ask anything" session for the conference that > > would take the place of two planned talks [0]. There has been much > > discussion on this issue [1] [2].
> > Please post a +1 if you are in favor of an "ask anything" session and > > 21 planned talks. Post a -1 if you would like that time allotted to > > planned talks, bringing the total to 23. Include commentary on your > > vote if you wish.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 13:42, Peter Murray <pe...@ohiolink.edu> wrote: > Congratulations, dchud, on hosting a great inaugural "ask anything" session. I thought it went very well. 40 minutes plus 5 minutes of trivia was just the right amount of time. I heard someone suggest that this could also be a way to spawn spontaneous breakout sessions, so if we do this again next year the emcee might want to keep in mind suggesting that option if there seems to be a lot of people interested in a topic.
> Peter
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Gabriel Farrell wrote:
>> Dan Chudnov proposed an "ask anything" session for the conference that >> would take the place of two planned talks [0]. There has been much >> discussion on this issue [1] [2].
>> Please post a +1 if you are in favor of an "ask anything" session and >> 21 planned talks. Post a -1 if you would like that time allotted to >> planned talks, bringing the total to 23. Include commentary on your >> vote if you wish.
