I'm a member of the FCIG and I wanted to also address the question you
raised, which asked why two organizations who have offered possible
sponsorship terms have Q&As included in the Appendix section of the FCIG
Report, and two do not. Thank you for looking over the Report carefully and
asking about this. The FCIG sees it as very important that the Report
provide an equal/fair presentation of all the sponsors' offers, so I'm glad
to describe the reason for this inconsistency.
The reason that OLF's and DuraSpace's terms are provided in the Q&A format
as appendices, and LITA/ALA and CLIR/DLF are included in the main narrative
section of the Report, is that the more direct, plain-transcription Q&A
format evolved out the FCIG's process as we interviewed possible sponsors
and wrote the report. When we started with LITA/ALA and CLIR/DLF, it simply
hadn't yet occurred to us that we could present the Q&A directly in our
final report (even though it seems frustratingly obvious in retrospect!).
When your question about the Q&A formats in the Appendix came up in this
thread, the FCIG discussed among ourselves whether at this time we should
go back to our notes and try to compile Q&A sections for DLF/CLIR and for
LITA/ALA, get approval of these drafts among our group and from the
sponsors, and add these to the Report. The reason not to do this is that
the Report has already been completed, and we feel that it provides
complete and clear data for the community to evaluate and move forward with
a vote, without delay.
The FCIG came to consensus that we think the full sections on LITA/ALA and
CLIR that are in the main body of the Report, as well as the representation
of terms that are in the table in the analysis section, provide a thorough
representation of terms sufficient for readers of the Report to understand
the offers from each organization and to evaluate and compare these terms.
If we were starting the Report now, drawing on everything we learned in the
process, we would use a consistent format across all of the sponsors, but
given the way the Report and discussion around it developed, the
inconsistency although not ideal, is not a sufficient issue to warrant
delay of the process moving forward. We concluded that the better option is
to move forward with the Report as it stands, instead of adding any further
In case it's useful to have direct links to each of the possible sponsor's
sections handy for reference, here are links to each sponsor's section in
the Report as posted at the C4L Wiki:
Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship - LITA/ALA
Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship - CLIR/DLF
Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship - OLF (Q&A in Appendix)
Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship - DuraSpace (Q&A in Appendix)
Here is a link to the Table: Summary of options, that compares each of the
four potential sponsors' proposed terms, as well as the same variables
applied to the other overall Options of: 1) do nothing/maintain status quo;
and 3) form C4L as independent non-profit organization:
Table: Summary of Options
I also wanted to make sure to say that the FCIG as a group sees the
materials we've provided as available for anyone to use - to remix or
reformat any part of our report so that the material in it is better
available for analysis and discussion. Please feel 100% free to do so!
We are really looking forward to community discussion, analysis, and debate
of all of the options, as people begin looking at the proposed Ballot Draft
available in the Code4Lib organization's FCIG repo in github
<https://github.com/code4lib/fcig> for anyone to suggest edits, and as the
vote itself takes place, from October 2-30. We're really excited that this
conversation is happening in the community.
Thank you again for your question, and we're glad to discuss anything more.
> > On Sep 20, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> > Why doesn't CLIR have question answers in an Appendix like everyone
> > If I was jumping to the Appendixes to see how everyone answered -- I
> > miss that CLIR was under consideration at all, or at any rate not be
> > to compare their answers.
> > CLIR remains my preferred choice, I'm hoping not treating them in
> > with the other options doesn't result in people missing the advantages
> > what they are offering.
> > Jonathan