I would like to thank Bethany Nowviskie (from the CLIR/DLF side) and Bohyun
Kim (from the local planning committee side) for chiming in about it not
being necessary for  incorporation or greater formalization than already
exists in the [Code4Lib] community would be necessary for [CLIR/DLF]  to
extend our current fiscal sponsorship (of the conference, etc.) to the long
term."

I think this is very useful (and, at least for me, compelling) information

Edward


On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
> >
>