My personal objection to the requirement for the conference leadership to
be a member of ALA / LITA is less financial and more philosophical.  As
someone else had written, I became part of Code4Lib because I didn't really
believe (and still don't) that ALA and LITA does enough to represent what
Code4Lib is as a community or what C4L has and hopes to accomplish.

And while I appreciate the idea of the conference budget covering that
cost, as someone who managed the conference budget and did the bulk of the
fundraising for the 2014 conference, I can say emphatically that every
dollar counts.  For example, as a conference chair, I would rather fund 1-3
registration scholarships )depending on the cost of that year's
registration) instead of having to pay for ALA and LITA memberships that is
nothing but a formality.

Tim

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda.
>
> I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that
> requirement, sorry.
>
> Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for
> our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least
> we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for.
> (And, sure, it's a little bit of incentive to run a conference, which is
> nice; but nobody is going to sign up for that much work *just* to get the
> free ALA membership.) As Andromeda said, that's such a small amount,
> compared to the conference's budget. I wouldn't want that to be the
> determining factor for choosing between ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR.
>
> (I'm not trying to push us in either direction--I think both are strong
> contenders, and I'm sure OLF will be, too, once we've had a chance to ask
> them our questions--but I don't want us to make a decision based on a
> couple hundred dollars in a 5 or 6 figure budget.)
>
> Best,
> Coral
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
> > chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need
> not
> > be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest
> group
> > formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to
> be
> > LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you.
> :)
> >
> > In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the
> conference
> > sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
> > categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join
> LITA,
> > plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
> > members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
> > conference budget.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this
> > info.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman <
> [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an
> ALA/LITA
> > > > membership.
> > > >
> > > > Kyle Breneman
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andromeda Yelton
> > Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
> > President, Library & Information Technology Association:
> > http://www.lita.org
> > http://andromedayelton.com
> > @ThatAndromeda <http://twitter.com/ThatAndromeda>
> >
>
-- 
Tim McGeary
[log in to unmask]
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)