I have to admit: I’m not a disinterested observer here, because I coordinate OPAL (www.opal-online.org), a collaborative effort by libraries to offer public programs and professional development opportunities to librarians and library users worldwide, using web-conferencing software. If the ALA Conference Planning team would like to beta test offering some live online events, I could do it in DC with very short notice (I’m lithe in spirit, if not in body!) for a very modest fee (well, I think it’s modest). It’s also easy to record and podcast online events, which would give people interested in ALA Annual Conference events another way to time-shift, too. Permissions, market research, revenue streams (or rivulets), and other factors are important considerations, but just trying new things on a small scale can provide useful information and knowledge.

I have to admit: I’m not a disinterested observer here, because I coordinate OPAL (www.opal-online.org), a collaborative effort by libraries to offer public programs and professional development opportunities to librarians and library users worldwide, using web-conferencing software. If the ALA Conference Planning team would like to beta test offering some live online events, I could do it in DC with very short notice (I’m lithe in spirit, if not in body!) for a very modest fee (well, I think it’s modest). It’s also easy to record and podcast online events, which would give people interested in ALA Annual Conference events another way to time-shift, too. Permissions, market research, revenue streams (or rivulets), and other factors are important considerations, but just trying new things on a small scale can provide useful information and knowledge.

Plus, it’s difficult to register by the “early bird” deadline without preliminary info. So all I’m really trying to say is that even without physical “printing,” the timeline may not necessarily change if the point is advance notice.

Hopefully more soon, and please keep the suggestions coming! Thanks for sparking the discussion, David.

Plus, it’s difficult to register by the “early bird” deadline without preliminary info. So all I’m really trying to say is that even without physical “printing,” the timeline may not necessarily change if the point is advance notice.

Hopefully more soon, and please keep the suggestions coming! Thanks for sparking the discussion, David.

On the size of the rooms thing – just my guess here, but is it possible there’s an average attendance number for, say, a division program at annual? Etc etc – we’ve done ALA Annual for awhile now, so I’m guessing ALA knows approximate sizes of rooms for different meetings… ???

I’d also agree with you that the huge behemoth ALA conference might not the best first experiment.

On the size of the rooms thing – just my guess here, but is it possible there’s an average attendance number for, say, a division program at annual? Etc etc – we’ve done ALA Annual for awhile now, so I’m guessing ALA knows approximate sizes of rooms for different meetings… ???

I’d also agree with you that the huge behemoth ALA conference might not the best first experiment.

First, I think it works by first letting anyone who wants to submit their proposal. So you’d need a 1-2 months window for proposal submission. Then, “the community” votes on those. I suppose between the submitting and the voting time, you’d have the option of weeding out obviously poor programs. You could even go so far as to weed it down to the 5-10 best (depending on the conference…). SO that would hopefully cut down on all programs getting a similar number of votes.

Next, on to your more specific thing about the same number of votes. Hmm… good question. I suppose you’d have a few options: 1. program committee gets to choose if there’s a tie; 2. let everyone talk, but give them shorter presentation times, or group some on a panel; 3. no real interest, so you cancel that part of the conference? I’d opt for #1 personally.

First, I think it works by first letting anyone who wants to submit their proposal. So you’d need a 1-2 months window for proposal submission. Then, “the community” votes on those. I suppose between the submitting and the voting time, you’d have the option of weeding out obviously poor programs. You could even go so far as to weed it down to the 5-10 best (depending on the conference…). SO that would hopefully cut down on all programs getting a similar number of votes.

Next, on to your more specific thing about the same number of votes. Hmm… good question. I suppose you’d have a few options: 1. program committee gets to choose if there’s a tie; 2. let everyone talk, but give them shorter presentation times, or group some on a panel; 3. no real interest, so you cancel that part of the conference? I’d opt for #1 personally.