I support the timeline proposed by Brian.

Edward

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Sarah H Shealy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> I think the timeline provided by Brian is reasonable.
>
>
> But it's TN, not NC.
>
>
> Sarah
>
> ________________________________
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jonathan
> Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:38:27 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for
> Proposals
>
> 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
> >
>