Hi, folks — this is just to clarify that, from the CLIR/DLF point of view, no incorporation or greater formalization than already exists in the community would be necessary for us to extend our current fiscal sponsorship (of the conference, etc.) to the long term.
Coral quoted it earlier, but here’s the relevant bit from the FCIG report:
CLIR would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance” processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws.
In terms of contact persons between Code4Lib and CLIR/DLF, CLIR expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single point of contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing committees and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities that currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some other groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on hosting of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how grassroots leadership happens in the community!"
We’re not big on red tape, either, and I think — even though it can get messy or stall out a little, sometimes! — decision-making, leadership, and lazy consensus in C4L is a wonder to behold, not to be overly messed-with.
Happy to answer any questions, when voting plans get to the right stage. I understand a message from Galen on behalf of the FCIG is on its way. — B.
Bethany Nowviskie
Director of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) at CLIR
Research Associate Professor of Digital Humanities, UVa
diglib.org<http://diglib.org> | clir.org<http://clir.org> | ndsa.org<http://ndsa.org> | nowviskie.org<http://nowviskie.org> | she/her/hers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:18:03 -0400
From: Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Governance for Code4Lib
On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
To follow up on Andromeda's calling the question, we need to do some things in addition to the usual dieboldotron.
1. There's a point of fact that is still being disputed/discussed: whether formalization is required by potential fiscal sponsor. It's straightforward to answer this before any poll is conducted - ask the potential fiscal sponsors to weigh in on the question.
Hasn't that been settled by Bohyun's message yesterday?
On Jul 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Jonathan is right, Cary. I am on this year's LPC for the next year's C4L conference at DC, and we are already working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor. No legal entity status was required.
Or is there some question that the requirements may be different for a long-term fiscal sponsorship, as opposed to a one-time sponsorship?
-Esmé
|
