 |
 |
Well then, I know how I will vote. Why fix what ain't broke? As I recall, that was our response to me calling the non-profit question back at the first Code4Lib Conference. Since there was no strong reason to become a non-profit at that time, we shrugged our shoulders and moved on. Since CLIR/DLF is fine with the way things are, then so am I. Roy On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Bethany Nowviskie <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi, folks — this is just to clarify that, from the CLIR/DLF point of view, > no incorporation or greater formalization than already exists in the > community would be necessary for us to extend our current fiscal > sponsorship (of the conference, etc.) to the long term. > > Coral quoted it earlier, but here’s the relevant bit from the FCIG report: > > CLIR would not request any control over Code4Lib’s > organizational/"governance” processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or > DLF’s bylaws. > In terms of contact persons between Code4Lib and CLIR/DLF, CLIR expressed > familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and indicated > that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single point of > contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to CLIR or > DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing committees > and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities that > currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some other > groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on hosting > of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how grassroots > leadership happens in the community!" > > We’re not big on red tape, either, and I think — even though it can get > messy or stall out a little, sometimes! — decision-making, leadership, and > lazy consensus in C4L is a wonder to behold, not to be overly messed-with. > > Happy to answer any questions, when voting plans get to the right stage. I > understand a message from Galen on behalf of the FCIG is on its way. — B. > > Bethany Nowviskie > Director of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) at CLIR > Research Associate Professor of Digital Humanities, UVa > diglib.org<http://diglib.org> | clir.org<http://clir.org> | ndsa.org< > http://ndsa.org> | nowviskie.org<http://nowviskie.org> | she/her/hers > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:18:03 -0400 > From: Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> > Subject: Re: Governance for Code4Lib > > On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:eric@ > hellman.net>> wrote: > > To follow up on Andromeda's calling the question, we need to do some > things in addition to the usual dieboldotron. > > 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. > > Hasn't that been settled by Bohyun's message yesterday? > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Jonathan is right, Cary. I am on this year's LPC for the next year's C4L > conference at DC, and we are already working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor. > No legal entity status was required. > > Or is there some question that the requirements may be different for a > long-term fiscal sponsorship, as opposed to a one-time sponsorship? > > -Esmé >