> 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.

To be clear, I believe we would be paying them substantially more than this
for fiscal sponsorship, presumably a % of revenue similar to all fiscal
sponsors.  So it's not in fact the least we could do, the literal least we
can per their fiscal sponsorship agreement is substantially more than that.

We'd have to go back and check the original report, which had these
details. I can't recall where to find it. But in my memory, they both had a
% and CLIR's was cheaper.

This conversation is becoming increasingly unmoored from facts. I point the
finger at myself there too, since I'm like "I don't remember what the
report actually said and I'm too lazy to go look for it, but here's what I
remember."

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:25 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>
> >
>