Thanks Carol! And +1.
Apart from any concern for the the relative benefits or pitfalls of any
kind of *-ocracy, it seems abundantly clear that in order to continue to
hold a large scale national conference each year we need someone to "do" a
stable fiscal agent for that purpose. It would be wise for that fiscal
agent to operate in a way that we, as a community can agree establishes
Count me in favor, as someone who can appreciate the amount of work and
responsibility undertaken by each years' host committee. I believe we can
do this and, if we do it well, Code4Lib (the conference) will be better for
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> the process started.
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> - Coral
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> > reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
> > BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> > Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> > of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
> > cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> > organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> > dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
> > DOLLARS liability.
> > I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
> > PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but my
> > feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> > conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> > Christina Salazar
> > Systems Librarian
> > John Spoor Broome Library
> > California State University, Channel Islands
> > 805/437-3198
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Brian Rogers
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
> > Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee:
> > This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email (
> > https://goo.gl/bs2au7) regarding the survey around potential impact on
> > attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of
> > discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee.
> > Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals who
> > the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues at
> > hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last
> > to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy
> > questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers.
> > 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
> > your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions.
> > This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a
> > host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple
> > institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance
> > increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally
> > confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or wholly
> > informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend with
> > unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott.
> > Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading
> > together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to
> > Code4Lib community:
> > 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning
> > Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and
> > should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no other
> > submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and
> > responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful.
> > 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then we
> > suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We
> > have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the
> > implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that virtual
> > cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. However,
> > given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a stable,
> > consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious community,
> > year is a hard sell across many of the states.
> > 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person
> > regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We realize,
> > course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a
> > unless another region wishes to adopt us.
> > Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the
> > planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in
> > Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We
> > any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here, Slack,
> > IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be
> > lurking these days.
> > And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect to
> > those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing the
> > raw numbers and not the freeform responses.
> > Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you
> > Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
> > 22.58% Yes, I would boycott.
> > 77.42% No, I would not boycott.
> > Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill,
> > would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
> > 26.61% Yes, I would boycott.
> > 73.38% No, I would not boycott.
> > Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you
> > boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses:
> > 46.34% Yes, I would boycott.
> > 53.66% No, I would not boycott.
> > Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the conference,
> > would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an
> > organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 Responses:
> > 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending.
> > 19.83% No, I would still boycott.
> > 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.)
> > Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would you
> > consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal funds
> > and on your personal time? 122 Responses:
> > 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
> > 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
> > --
> > Brian Rogers
> > Director of Library IT & Professor
> > UTC Library, Dept. 6456
> > University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> > Phone: 423-425-5279
> > Email: [log in to unmask]