I had a couple thoughts/questions about the timeframe for voting, and the
method for voting.
*timeframe for voting *
I think we should stick with Galen’s proposed voting time frame of August
14-25, as a minimum amount of time; I agree that the voting window should
be at least two weeks long.
Starting the voting before August 14 seems OK, as long as that could allow
for enough time to complete the OLF and DuraSpace sections with the same
degree of thoroughness that went into the discussions with previous
organizations.
If possible, I think the FCIG should follow the same process with OLF and
DuraSpace that we used in our other discussions: gather responses from the
organization based on the list of questions for potential sponsors, offer a
follow-up conversation for any clarifications, share a draft of the option
for discussion within the FCIG, and then share the report with the broader
c4l list. I believe that we should be consistent in this process so that
the terms of each option are represented as fairly and accurately as
possible, and so that FCIG members have time to think through/talk through
any concerns or questions about an option before including it in the
report. I think it will likely take until at least August 4 to complete
these steps.
*method for voting*
I understand the reasons for the suggestion of approval voting, but I’m
concerned about the wording for the questions if we use this method. To me,
the example questions read in a way that puts the voter in a somewhat
passive role: the options read like things that would be done, by some
external agent/a circumstance that would arrive, and the voter is being
asked whether or not they would find that circumstance acceptable when it
arrives. (examples in this thread: [3] https://lists.clir.org/cgi-
bin/wa?A2=CODE4LIB;7084ab47.1707)
I’d prefer that the questions are framed so that voter is in a more active
position: “which option should we implement? which route do you see as the
best choice?” I know the suggested question format was just an initial
example to demonstrate the concept of approval voting - but I see this
active/participatory role as an important quality to integrate into the
ballot, especially since “maintain status quo” (do nothing) could have the
momentum of loss aversion. For this reason, I’m strongly in favor of the
suggestion to draft the ballot in github.
- Morgan
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 1. There's a point of fact that is still being disputed/discussed:
> whether formalization
> > is required by potential fiscal sponsor. It's straightforward to answer
> this before any
> > poll is conducted - ask the potential fiscal sponsors to weigh in on
> the question.
>
> DLF/CLIR has responded to this question, and the ALA/LITA section of
> the FCIG report also speaks to this question.
>
> Regarding the broader question of whether Code4Lib can seek a fiscal
> sponsor as an unincorporated organization, I agree with Jonathan and
> others that it is possible. Here's some additional light reading in
> support of that point: [1] [2].
>
> > 2. There's been conflicting suggestions as to the voting method.
> (Approval vs. ranked).
> > The scary word "quorum" has been mentioned. There also needs to be some
> discussion
> > and consensus on exactly what the options to be voted on will say.
> Probably this works
> > better with issues in a github repo.
>
> I like Coral's suggestion [3] to hold a single vote that poses several
> questions. As Coral mentioned just now, the FCIG is expecting
> proposals from OLF and DuraSpace soon and will update the report as
> they come in. My initial message this month [4] proposed 14 to 25
> August for the vote. Based on the discussion so far, we may well be
> able to hold a vote sooner.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that some have expressed that the voting
> period should be loudly announced. I also think that it should be at
> least two weeks long.
>
> > And I have to point out that right after asserting that Code4Lib "lacks
> a mechanism for
> > calling the question", Andromeda invoked a Code4Lib mechanism for
> calling the question.
>
> And I would like to emphasize that from my point of view, Code4Lib
> already has a governance mechanism, or at least a decision mechanism,
> and it's one that I think can suffice for the short- and medium-term.
> We have used the Diebold-o-tron over the years to choose conference
> hosts and local planning committees, thereby expressing trust that
> each LPC would work to put on a good conference and responsibly use
> any seed money that was passed on from the previous year.
>
> It's not a far stretch to extend this sort of community vote to cover
> the following questions:
>
> * whether to incorporate, adopt a fiscal sponsor, or do nothing (and
> in fact, I see no other way that this decision could be made by and on
> behalf of the community)
> * if need be, identifying and confirming people that the community
> trusts to be point on incorporating and/or negotiating with potential
> fiscal sponsors
> * approving a MOU with a fiscal sponsor or bylaws in case we incorporate
> * periodically choosing conference LPCs and/or named contacts with a
> fiscal sponsor
> * discussing and approving funding requests for Code4Lib activities
> outside of the annual conference
>
> In the long run, that sort of "committee-of-the-whole" — or at least
> "commitee-of-those-who-care-to-vote" — decision-making may continue to
> work well for us, or may need tweaking. In fact, I expect that there
> will need to be tweaks and governance discussions (hopefully no more
> painful than necessary). There's a difference between a group that has
> no assets other than the time and energy that its members care to
> spend on it, and a group that has collective control of a bank
> account. Not accounting for and discussing that change would be a
> mistake — governing ourselves takes work! and money complicates
> matters! — but I also think that we don't need to figure out a whole
> new governance structure all at once, though we may need to more fully
> document how we currently make decisions.
>
> [1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2015/05/04_bradrick.html
> [2] https://www.probonopartner.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/
> 01/Fiscal-Sponsorships-11.09.pdf
> [3] https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CODE4LIB;7084ab47.1707
> [4] https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CODE4LIB;5632c274.1707
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
> Equinox Open Library Initiative
> phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
> email: [log in to unmask]
> web: https://equinoxInitiative.org
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell: +1 404-984-4366
>
|
