I did look at this while I was at LYRASIS a few years ago. (I'm now at Cherry Hill -- soon to be at Index Data -- http://dltj.org/p27236 ). At the time they had an "association management" division that did this sort of thing. They disbanded that division before I left, but they are under new executive leadership now, so they might be interested in doing it again.
Peter
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I
> don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the
> community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be
> interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be
> somethign to look into.
>
> Edward
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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]
--
Peter Murray
Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager, Cherry Hill Company
Blogger, Disruptive Library Technology Jester - http://dltj.org/
|
