Feedback and ideas for next time

So it seemed like Library Camp of the West 2008 went very well, but there are always things that can be improved. What went well and what didn't? It sounded like people wanted to do something similar again, so how/when/where should we do that?

[I'll post the notes from our closing session here later this week, but feel free to dive right in. -Steve]

• I'm convinced there's got to be a somewhat less chaotic way to do scheduling. I was going to sort of set a schedule ahead of time but was convinced at the last minute to do the show of hands thing. I still like that as an idea, but I feel it could have been done better.
  • Scheduling was a little crazy, but it felt like a very unconference-y way to do it - plus, folks suggested several things I myself was interested in (at different times, too!).Perhaps
  • Perhaps a compromise, schedule some biggies, and leave some "wild-card" openings to be decided day of (the biggies could be decided by forum polls before the unconference - still voting, very unconferency)
  • Of course there's a less chaotic way of scheduling; however, I don't think there's a faster way. That was pretty impressive, arranging a day's conference in little over a half hour.
  • I think the only change that needs to be made is to project the schedule onto a larger surface, so maybe using an overhead projector instead of flip char.
• I suggested that everyone in the first session I went to introduce themselves, since I always like to know who everyone is (although I am remarkably forgetful--my apologies in advance to anyone I don't recognize in the future). This was all very well, but it took up a huge amount of time and left little time for the real meat of the session. Should we just have people introduce themselves as they make a point? Or skip intros altogether?
  • As they make a point. Hard to remember everyone without some sort of context (like their contribution) to go by.
• That brings me to worrying some about introverts vs. extroverts in settings like LCOW, or I guess perhaps more accurately about loudmouths like me vs. people who don't talk much. Should we put more thought into who moderates sessions so that, with luck, those groups are balanced out more?
  • I like the idea of moderator teams - one expert in the topic and one "trained" discussion moderator. That way the passion is there, but so is the structure. Example can be provided if needed.
  • Introverts who choose to go to an unconference are probably strong enough to deal with it. Too much a priori accommodation and you don't have an unconference anymore. Which is fine. But instead of an open marketplace, you have a grocery store. Or, instead of an unconference, a conference.
• Do we maybe need longer breaks between sessions, especially if some of them are going on in another building?