The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are considering, the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity and provides that legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of the hosting.

Let's take OLF, for example. (And Tim or Mike, correct me if I'm wrong here.) OLF exists to provide a home to organizations or projects that fit it's broad mission. OLE does require hosted organizations to describe their governance (and makes no proscriptions about that governance) It does not require those organizations to be legally incorporated, but there is some degree of formalization. And that formalization is there to assure the OLF that the organization is operating in a scope that the OLF supports and in a way that does not jeopardize the OLF's status. So the hosted organization needs some degree of formalizing, but has no need to incorporate. The OLF provides that incorporation (including not-for-profit status) for the hosted organization.

As I read it, that's essentially the same for both CLIR/DLF and ALA/LITA. If Code4Lib were to be hosted by any of these, CLIR, ALA, or OLF would act as the legal entity that can enter into contracts on behalf of Code4Lib, no need for Code4Lib to legally incorporate.

The hosting organizations will have some requirements for formalizing governance (and perhaps the Code4Lib "bubble" under LITA would be the least formal) but that is a far cry from incorporating.

-Tod

On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states some form of association, but even those require some level of governance and administration. Galan and I researched this a few years ago, and he has a handle on what’s available in Georgia. I don’t believe that we should organize in California, but if anyone else wants to volunteer their state, and do the research, have at it.

Because librarians, the greater community will likely want some kind of say in this. My feeling is that we should solicit volunteers to create a simple association and come up with (e.g. steal) some bylaws, or perhaps just propose to have the Fiscal Continuity IG take this on and have a DieboldATron vote.

Cary

On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who
responded thus far.

A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of
self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community
since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation
in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to
self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that
an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources
needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation
process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built
up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*.

There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to
pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to
expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of
people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community
in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are
not growing at the same rate.

So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with
an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor,
emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial sponsor (DLF/OLA/CLIR)
would have lower resource cost to the community. The concerns about
autonomy are valid, but the organizations that we are looking at seem to
have friendly leadership folks that would be more than happy to talk
through any concerns :c)

And now for a controversial statement - option one, which is to keep status
quo, should not be considered further in this discussion. It not only
leaves us open to a greater amount of risk (see previous comments about how
FRAKKING LUCKY we've been so far with pulling off our events) than the
other two options, but is also demanding that future conference planners in
that the community spend additional resources, time, and labor in their
conference and community work that could be more wisely spent elsewhere.

We need to choose between a financial sponsor or to self-incorporate.
Resource-wise, a financial sponsor seems fall in line with what we, as a
community, can spend on this particular issue at this time.

[1] https://code4lib.org/2006/tennant

Cheers,
Becky



On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

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