Well then, I know how I will vote. Why fix what ain't broke? As I recall,
that was our response to me calling the non-profit question back at the
first Code4Lib Conference. Since there was no strong reason to become a
non-profit at that time, we shrugged our shoulders and moved on. Since
CLIR/DLF is fine with the way things are, then so am I.
Roy

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Bethany Nowviskie <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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:eric@
> hellman.net>> 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
>