Hi,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Karl W Holten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would also like to see a vote on this sooner rather than later. The committee has done
> a great job looking into the various possibilities, and I would hate to
> see momentum stall out on this again.
>
> It seems that it is not quite as simple as just saying "we want a sponsor"
> or "we would like to incorporate", but that there are also options within those
> preferences to choose from. Maybe we could do something like a ranked
> preference vote?

If folks think we're ready to call a vote and move forward, what I
suggest we do is a ranked preference vote among the choice of
"maintain status quo", "incorporate as a separate entity", or "partner
with a fiscal host".

Under this approach, if the clear community preference is to partner
with a fiscal host, the FCIG could present to OLF the same questions
we asked of ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR and append to the report. Folks
could also ask questions of DLF/CLIR and ALA/LITA. If there are other
organizations who would want to propose to act as fiscal host, they
could also make themselves known.

We could then hold a second vote to choose among them (or to decide
that upon having full information about the potential fiscal hosts
that Code4LIb would rather self-incorporate or maintain the status quo
after all).

Another option would be to allow a bit of time for OLF (and others) to
answer the questions (and any other questions that community members
care to raise), then hold a preference vote to choose among
maintaining the status quo, self-incorporating, entering into
negotiations with potential host X, with potential host Y, and so
forth.

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
Equinox Open Library Initiative
phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
email:  [log in to unmask]
web:  https://equinoxInitiative.org
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366