I would guess that the swing between "current" and "if passed" makes securing the financial sponsor quite difficult.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Sherman
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it sound like the financing was the bigger issue.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 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.
> The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents were not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would have inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive enough?
> — Matt
> Matt Connolly
> Applications developer, CUL-IT
> 218 Olin Library
> Cornell University
> (607) 255-0653