I wouldn't have even done a vote at all -- I think when we vote on
conference hosts, we are choosing people to steward the conference and make
sure it happens, as good as it can be using their judgement for what that
looks like and how to make it happen.  The fact that the NC folks are
attempting to make sure the torch can get passed instead of just throwing
up their hands and saying "it's back at you, community, we're no longer
involved" shows that stewardship was well-placed. I think it would have
been totally appropriate for them to simply pass the torch.

But if votes are going to happen, they need to happen as quickly as
possible if you want the conf to actually come off, at least in the
spring.  How is "7 days after a credible proposal that includes financial
backing" not an "arbitrary deadline"?  Are you willing to wait forever for
such a "credible proposal" to show up? Who decides if it's "credible"?
Once a proposal shows up, anyone else that was trying to work on a proposal
now has exactly 7 days to get one in, but they had no idea what their
deadline was until the first proposal showed up, which hopefully they
noticed on the email list so they know what their deadline is now?  Or only
the first proposal to get in gets a yes/no vote, and anyone else doesn't
get included in the vote, first to get the proposal to email wins?

There are a bunch of different ways it could be done, but calendar dates
are important for an orderly process, and speedy calendar dates are
important for the conf to actually happen, and I think nitpicking and
arguing over the process the NC folks have chosen is pointless, they were
entrusted to steward the thing, the process they've come up with is
reasonable, just go with it.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I think that we should avoid arbitrary limits such as a July 1st deadline.
> We should open up any credible proposal that includes financial backing to
> discussion and a vote closing seven days after the proposal is posted to
> this list.
>
> Cary
>
> > On Jun 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Brian Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings once more from the Chattanooga Local Planning Committee -
> >
> > We come with another update regarding the annual Code4Lib conference.
> After the announcement of our survey, two other groups immediately reached
> out about the possibility of hosting the conference. Of those two, the one
> that is the most confident about being able to secure a fiscal host and
> still pull off everything within the existing timeframe, is the LA-based
> C4L-SoCal. We spoke with three of their members earlier in the week - Gary
> Thompson, Christina Salazar, and Joshua Gomez. After discussion, we
> collectively envision a collaboration between the two groups, given the
> effort, energy and commitment the Chattanooga group has already invested.
> The LA group would handle more of the venue and local arrangements, with
> the Chattanooga group helping spearhead other planning elements.
> >
> > Thus, the idea is to host the annual conference in the greater LA area.
> >
> > However, even though Chattanooga's proposal was the only one put forth
> for next year, since this suggestion does reflect a significant change, and
> because LA is still working on securing a fiscal host, we are proposing to
> the community the following:
> >
> > - Since a handful of individuals came forth w/alternative cities
> subsequent to my last update, any group who now wishes to put forth a
> proposal, do so by July 1st.
> > - Given the specter of timecrunch, we ask anyone, including LA, who
> would put forth another city, to only do so with written confirmation of a
> fiscal host by that same deadline.
> > - If more than one city has put forth a proposal and secured a fiscal
> host within that window of time, we will put it to a community vote, with
> polls being left up through July 15th.
> >
> > As always, comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for all the existing
> feedback, dialogue, various offers people have come forth with, and the
> patience while we try to wrangle up a physical home for 2017.
> >
> > - Brian Rogers
>