I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.

I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more info on how the arrangement works.

-Esmé

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
> enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
>> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for
>> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
>> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An existing
>> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
>> 
>> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
>> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement
>> for another year, including the MOU:
>> 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
>> 
>> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more
>> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit
>> organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
>> lighter-weight option.
>> 
>> -Esmé
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>> front
>>>> 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
>> thousand
>>>> 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
>> took
>>>> 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
>> Tuesday
>>>> 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 by
>>>> your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions.
>>>> 
>>>> This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a
>> fiscal
>>>> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple
>>>> institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance
>> and
>>>> 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
>> an
>>>> 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
>> the
>>>> 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
>> city
>>>> 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
>> already
>>>> 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,
>> this
>>>> 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,
>> of
>>>> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a
>> predicament,
>>>> 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
>> invite
>>>> 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
>> boycott
>>>> 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]
>>>> 
>>