I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far:

 * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal sponsor

 * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own incorporation makes sense

 * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and wouldn't be outright opposed to ALA or OLF


Peter

On Jul 18, 2017, 2:52 PM -0400, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>, wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow
> Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the
> lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want to.
> Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal
> continuity working group, but speaking *only for myself*), I think this is
> a far better option than trying to jump right into forming our own
> nonprofit right out of the gate.
>
> For one thing, it comes with the possibility of having a sponsorship in
> place in time for the 2019 conference. Someone who worked more closely on
> the nonprofit option for our report is welcome to correct me, but it seems
> to me (from what I remember from our discussions, writing/editing the
> document, and also some work I've done with other potential nonprofits in
> the past) that jumping through those legal hoops takes a whole lot of time
> and effort.
>
> If people are really excited about forming a nonprofit of our own, I
> certainly wouldn't stand in the way. It isn't a bad option. But I believe
> it carries the same shorter-term risks as the "do nothing" option: we could
> fail to find a temporary sponsoring organization for 2019, and I believe it
> is probably more than we need to do, right this second.
>
> The fiscal sponsorship model seems to me like our best bet, especially as a
> first step into getting more organized. As our fiscal sponsor, ALA/LITA or
> DLF/CLIR (or, yeah, OLF) could take the EBSCO payments mentioned earlier in
> the thread, as well as letting us receive grants and donations that are
> only available to nonprofit entities. They could give us financial and
> organizational continuity that we lack, and neither organization has
> expressed any interest in telling us how to run our affairs; quite the
> opposite, in fact.
>
> And, to be clear: I believe the "do nothing" option is wildly irresponsible
> and asking too much of future conference committees; it does not give us a
> reasonable risk mitigation model. Under the current model, we risk losing
> our conference forever due to a natural or legal disaster (imagine
> something like Hurricane Katrina or the NC bathroom bill, happening mid-way
> through conference planning, one year). We only get to have conferences as
> a legal non-entity, right now, because we have a solid track record of not
> ever losing money--and talk to any former conference chair about how much
> pressure *that* puts on them. We've been lucky to avoid disaster, and going
> with the "do nothing" option is basically just assuming we will somehow
> keep avoiding disasters, forever. Because, if we fail to meet our financial
> obligations with a temporary sponsor? That's going to make it *really*
> difficult to find other temporary sponsors.
>
> Again, I speak only for myself, and I don't speak as clearly as I probably
> would under better personal circumstances. You're getting the best I've got
> to give, this week.
>
> - Coral