At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I
don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the
community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be
interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be
somethign to look into.

Edward

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a
> financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership
> committee. So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the
> financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.
>
> I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more
> info on how the arrangement works.
>
> -Esmé
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
> > enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
> >> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host
> for
> >> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
> >> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.). An
> existing
> >> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
> >>
> >> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
> >> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the
> arrangement
> >> for another year, including the MOU:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
> >>
> >> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L
> more
> >> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a
> non-profit
> >> organization. So having a financial host arrangement could be a
> >> lighter-weight option.
> >>
> >> -Esmé
> >>
> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
> >> Christina!
> >>>
> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> >>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind
> the
> >>> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
> >> takes
> >>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to
> get
> >>> the process started.
> >>>
> >>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> >>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think
> my
> >>> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> >>> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> >>> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> >>> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
> >> gut
> >>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> >>> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely)
> should
> >>> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional
> stuff?
> >>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> >>> options are, right now.
> >>>
> >>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a
> >> flat
> >>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> >>> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
> >> even
> >>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> >>> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know
> how
> >> to
> >>> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
> >> Having
> >>> some kind of formal structure would help.
> >>>
> >>> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> >>>
> >>> - Coral
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> >>>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES
> OF
> >>>> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> >> front
> >>>> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing
> to
> >>>> cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> >>>> organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> >> thousand
> >>>> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED
> THOUSAND
> >>>> DOLLARS liability.
> >>>>
> >>>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long
> term.
> >>>>
> >>>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but
> >> my
> >>>> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> >>>> conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Christina Salazar
> >>>> Systems Librarian
> >>>> John Spoor Broome Library
> >>>> California State University, Channel Islands
> >>>> 805/437-3198
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
> >>>> Brian Rogers
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email (
> >>>> https://goo.gl/bs2au7) regarding the survey around potential impact
> on
> >>>> attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of
> >>>> discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals who
> >> took
> >>>> the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues at
> >>>> hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last
> >> Tuesday
> >>>> to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy
> >>>> questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers.
> >>>>
> >>>> We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to providing a
> >>>> safe and accommodating environment for all attendees, it is morally
> and
> >>>> fiscally irresponsible to continue the effort of hosting the annual
> >>>> conference in Chattanooga. This decision was not an easy one, and
> there
> >>>> were hours of discussion as to the pros and cons of proceeding,
> >> informed by
> >>>> your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a
> >> fiscal
> >>>> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple
> >>>> institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of
> attendance
> >> and
> >>>> increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally
> >>>> confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or wholly
> >>>> informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend
> with
> >> an
> >>>> unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading
> >>>> together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to
> >> the
> >>>> Code4Lib community:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning
> >>>> Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and
> >>>> should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no other
> >> city
> >>>> submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and
> >>>> responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful.
> >>>> 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then
> we
> >>>> suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We
> >> already
> >>>> have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the
> >>>> implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that virtual
> >>>> cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. However,
> >>>> given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a stable,
> >>>> consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious community,
> >> this
> >>>> year is a hard sell across many of the states.
> >>>> 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person
> >>>> regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We
> realize,
> >> of
> >>>> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a
> >> predicament,
> >>>> unless another region wishes to adopt us.
> >>>>
> >>>> Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the
> >>>> planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in
> >>>> Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We
> >> invite
> >>>> any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here,
> >> Slack,
> >>>> IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be
> >>>> lurking these days.
> >>>>
> >>>> And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect
> >> to
> >>>> those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing
> the
> >>>> raw numbers and not the freeform responses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you
> >> boycott
> >>>> Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> 22.58% Yes, I would boycott.
> >>>> 77.42% No, I would not boycott.
> >>>>
> >>>> Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill,
> >>>> would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> 26.61% Yes, I would boycott.
> >>>> 73.38% No, I would not boycott.
> >>>>
> >>>> Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you
> >>>> boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> 46.34% Yes, I would boycott.
> >>>> 53.66% No, I would not boycott.
> >>>>
> >>>> Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the
> conference,
> >>>> would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an
> >>>> organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121
> >> Responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending.
> >>>> 19.83% No, I would still boycott.
> >>>> 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would
> >> you
> >>>> consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal
> >> funds
> >>>> and on your personal time? 122 Responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
> >>>> 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to
> attend.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Brian Rogers
> >>>> Director of Library IT & Professor
> >>>> UTC Library, Dept. 6456
> >>>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> >>>> Phone: 423-425-5279
> >>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>
> >>
>