We waited 13 or so years, so what's a few more days? I agree that we should
wait for all the information to come in from OLF and DuraSpace.

Edward

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> While I'm usually all for calling the question as quickly as possible(!),
> the FCIG is waiting on proposals from OLF and DuraSpace, before we hold the
> vote -- we already have one of those, and it just needs to be put into the
> report/shared out -- so that the community can make as well-informed a
> decision, with as many good options, as possible.
>
> Best,
> Coral
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:23 PM, 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
> > >
> >
>