Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors have
called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given us, that
come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I encourage everyone
to read the report in its entirety, because you might see things in it that
I do not):

From the report section about fiscal sponsorship
<https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report#Option_2:_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsorship_from_an_External_Organization>
:

Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely to
choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly recommend
that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the individuals would
be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue."

Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we
expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers must
be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be written into
LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," because that's
their most flexible option; but that doesn't really require formal bylaws,
let alone incorporation. As someone who has put a LITA interest group
together, I can assure you of that.)

I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from some of
the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a single
organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, like
DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee would
serve just fine in that role.

For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and
formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib establish an
MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that Code4Lib’s annual
conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF member
organizations. ... CLIR
would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... 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!"'

So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or
something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give that
work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to incorporate, *if
we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might *opt* to incorporate. It
might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement.

Thanks,
Coral
Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for sending
two long messages in a single day.