Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was significant support for the idea.
I think perhaps the title "formalizing Code4Lib" might be a bit misleading though... We might want to frame the idea as "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" or something along those lines. This way, we don't have to think about major changes all at once.
I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming that there will be a physical one.
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Rogers
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
Since the Chattanooga Planning Committee inadvertently prompted this newest round of conversations around some degree of formalization, would it be useful if we threw together a follow-up survey for the community, to test the waters around support (or lack there of) for the notion of formalizing, to the extent that it allows for a stable place to house the annual conference funds? And if it seems like there is overwhelming support for the idea, a group of volunteers can band together at that point to pursue options to present back to the community?