LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  June 2016

CODE4LIB June 2016

Subject:

Formalizing Code4Lib?

From:

Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:31:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

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]
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager