 |
 |
One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states some form of association, but even those require some level of governance and administration. Galan and I researched this a few years ago, and he has a handle on what’s available in Georgia. I don’t believe that we should organize in California, but if anyone else wants to volunteer their state, and do the research, have at it. Because librarians, the greater community will likely want some kind of say in this. My feeling is that we should solicit volunteers to create a simple association and come up with (e.g. steal) some bylaws, or perhaps just propose to have the Fiscal Continuity IG take this on and have a DieboldATron vote. Cary > On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who > responded thus far. > > A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of > self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community > since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation > in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to > self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that > an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources > needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation > process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built > up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*. > > There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several > steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come > back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to > pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to > expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of > people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community > in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are > not growing at the same rate. > > So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with > an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor, > emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial sponsor (DLF/OLA/CLIR) > would have lower resource cost to the community. The concerns about > autonomy are valid, but the organizations that we are looking at seem to > have friendly leadership folks that would be more than happy to talk > through any concerns :c) > > And now for a controversial statement - option one, which is to keep status > quo, should not be considered further in this discussion. It not only > leaves us open to a greater amount of risk (see previous comments about how > FRAKKING LUCKY we've been so far with pulling off our events) than the > other two options, but is also demanding that future conference planners in > that the community spend additional resources, time, and labor in their > conference and community work that could be more wisely spent elsewhere. > > We need to choose between a financial sponsor or to self-incorporate. > Resource-wise, a financial sponsor seems fall in line with what we, as a > community, can spend on this particular issue at this time. > > [1] https://code4lib.org/2006/tennant > > Cheers, > Becky > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far: >> >> * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal >> sponsor >> >> * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own >> incorporation makes sense >> >> * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and >> wouldn't be outright opposed to ALA or OLF >> >> >> Peter >>