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:
> 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.
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
> > I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> > that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
> > 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
> > go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
> > 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple
> >> institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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,
> >> 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,
> >> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a
> >> 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
> >> any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here,
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal
> >> 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]