 |
 |
My personal objection to the requirement for the conference leadership to be a member of ALA / LITA is less financial and more philosophical. As someone else had written, I became part of Code4Lib because I didn't really believe (and still don't) that ALA and LITA does enough to represent what Code4Lib is as a community or what C4L has and hopes to accomplish. And while I appreciate the idea of the conference budget covering that cost, as someone who managed the conference budget and did the bulk of the fundraising for the 2014 conference, I can say emphatically that every dollar counts. For example, as a conference chair, I would rather fund 1-3 registration scholarships )depending on the cost of that year's registration) instead of having to pay for ALA and LITA memberships that is nothing but a formality. Tim On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda. > > I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that > requirement, sorry. > > Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for > our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least > we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for. > (And, sure, it's a little bit of incentive to run a conference, which is > nice; but nobody is going to sign up for that much work *just* to get the > free ALA membership.) As Andromeda said, that's such a small amount, > compared to the conference's budget. I wouldn't want that to be the > determining factor for choosing between ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR. > > (I'm not trying to push us in either direction--I think both are strong > contenders, and I'm sure OLF will be, too, once we've had a chance to ask > them our questions--but I don't want us to make a decision based on a > couple hundred dollars in a 5 or 6 figure budget.) > > Best, > Coral > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice > > chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need > not > > be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest > group > > formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to > be > > LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you. > :) > > > > In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the > conference > > sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what > > categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join > LITA, > > plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed > > members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the > > conference budget. > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this > > info. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman < > [log in to unmask] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an > ALA/LITA > > > > membership. > > > > > > > > Kyle Breneman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andromeda Yelton > > Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/ > > President, Library & Information Technology Association: > > http://www.lita.org > > http://andromedayelton.com > > @ThatAndromeda <http://twitter.com/ThatAndromeda> > > > -- Tim McGeary [log in to unmask] GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary 484-294-7660 (Google Voice)