Thanks for the information Peter (and best of luck at Index Data).

Edward

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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/
>