Honestly, from this discussion, I suspect we already have rough consensus,
and expect the poll results to be: CLIR as a Fiscal Sponsor. I think there
is pretty widespread, although not unanimous, support for that direction in
this discussion.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that,
> first figure out if people agree the status quo is no good...
>
> We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG.
> They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the
> various options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on
> getting more information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need
> to create another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom
> proposes, I think.
>
> I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal
> Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making
> practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as
> the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the
> ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ).
>
> I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think
> it's info for the Fiscal Continuity WG. They'd probably follow it, unless
> they have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be
> disastrous.
>
> I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the
> poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more
> questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the
> status quo, then...".
>
> I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the
> community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip
> that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for
> people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any
> of the options presented.
>
> I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is
> fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and
> that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by
> discussion.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the
>> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions
>> apart, I think we should start with one simple question:
>>
>> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
>> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
>> b. maintain the status quo?
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed
>> with a mandate to
>>
>> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on
>> the Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
>> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib
>> community, and
>> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation
>> paperwork on behalf of the community.
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue
>> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to
>> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.
>>
>> - Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]<mail
>> to:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them
>> mentioned in the email thread so far.
>>
>> As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC
>> Conference, here are some things that I would like to share.
>>
>> --- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L
>> people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only
>> those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in
>> an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library
>> to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose
>> and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be
>> lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more
>> diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and
>> participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation
>> and location.
>>
>> (Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of
>> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no
>> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same
>> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
>> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
>> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
>> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal,
>> period.)
>>
>> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as
>> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc.
>> These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will
>> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with
>> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our
>> conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference
>> planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics
>> saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience
>> (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee
>> volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and
>> professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and
>> worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L
>> conference.
>>
>> --- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT
>> required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this
>> year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for
>> the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in
>> terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib
>> community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor
>> would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal
>> sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is
>> limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated
>> and finalized by the C4L LPC.
>>
>> Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting
>> up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that
>> that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating
>> successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion +
>> occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal
>> entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far
>> greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with
>> a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in
>> annual conference logistics.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bohyun
>>
>> --
>> Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
>> Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
>> Health Sciences and Human Services Library:
>> http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/
>> Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology
>> Association: http://www.lita.org
>>
>> <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has
>> been deafening]
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:tod@u
>> chicago.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
>> receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
>> purposes.
>>
>>
>> Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't
>> invest
>> much energy in journal royalties -- it's a simple issue and the distance
>> between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.
>>
>> C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
>> because people do things. The domain name, systems, and everything we
>> rely
>> on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up
>> --meaning
>> that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
>> desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
>> process of finding a fiscal home.
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>>
>
