 |
 |
Ben, this sounds great, brilliant - I'm excited already! Dates are good with me, and venue sounds good. Like John, I think the way we organised things in Lancaster worked pretty well. To remind people of the structure of the Lancaster event, the inclusivity of the first day was followed by the relative exclusivity of the second day because the aim was to bring together and help cement a new network of researchers with a primary interest in cycling, and so the second day was designed to be open only to such people. I can see two (of no doubt many) possible routes from there: - EITHER we say, well, we've now established ourselves as a network, and so the format might differ to reflect that; for example, we might want an event that's open to anyone who is interested in and committed to 2 days of a mixture of paper presentations, workshops and discussions, or we could go for 2 days of paper presentations and follow-up discussions, interspersed with bike rides (and thereby kind of informalise the workshop stuff) - OR we might say that we're still actually a network in the early stages of formation, and so a repeat of last year's format might work for cycling researchers who have only recently learned of our existence, and want to 'join in' with our emerging collective (but, if we were to do that, I'd agree with John that the second day should be a bit more structured than it was in June) Generally, I say: - keep it cheap - provide the opportunity for people presenting at Velo-City in May/June to do trial runs of their papers, or at least sound out their ideas in an informal, friendly atmosphere - we ought to find space, for those who are going, to prepare and plan for the CSRG's interventions (fringe meeting, debate?) at Velo-City Dave