Given what I remember just from the work it took for the program
committee to do our little section I cannot imagine a local planning
committee pulling it off in less time than Brian has outlined, and it
is probably tricky to do it even in that time-frame.  Thanks Brian and
the Chattanooga folks for providing a good outline to move forward.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>>