A potential issue with that first method is that I think a lot of folks lurk, care, and maybe even attend the conference...but for a variety of reasons may not post to the list.
Early in my code4lib days I was intimidated by what I perceived to be the level of experience and expertise from the more vocal/visible members of the community and doubted the potential worth of adding my voice. There can be lots of reasons for radio silence including impostor's syndrome, actual job function (as compared to idealized job fit), current ability to engage (life and work get in the way), etc. And so I'm not sure that contributing to the list is an ideal proxy for "active" for this community.
Having said this, I'm not coming up with any great alternatives.
If this particular attempt doesn't seem to end in a clear answer, I'd be comfortable with that subset of the community that happens to attend the conference in 2018 making the decision as a collective. I think it would end up being representative enough. And there'd be the potential for nearly full engagement (for the attendees) with the voting process if it were a part of the actual event.
I really appreciated the reminder, though, as I'd meant to vote but it had fallen off my radar.
As a past conference organizer, I'd recommend giving extra emphasis in your individual deliberations to the voices of those who have struggled with the realities of being "a community" with no formal mechanism for dealing with the funds issue.
Others have done so, but I'd like to pile on with my thanks to those who have been doing the heavy lifting on identifying the alternatives, investigating them, and creating this tool. It's a lot of work, but it's important work. Thank you!
[now wearing his imaginary, virtual "I voted" sticker]
On 10/24/17, 5:01 PM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Butler, Paul Raymond" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
One method would be to count all unique emails that posted to the listserv in say the last 3 years as a baseline for "Active membership" and require say 51% of that number to be consider a quorum for this vote. Another baseline would be the average conference attendance over a period of time. So many ways to slice and dice this, if it wasn't established prior to the vote.
Paul R Butler, mlis
Library Technologies Support Analyst
Library Information Technology Services (L.I.T.S)
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
E: [log in to unmask]
The University Libraries provide services that support student pursuits for academic success and faculty endeavors for knowledge creation and classroom instruction.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coral Sheldon-Hess
Sent: October 24, 2017 4:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]
That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum percentage of voters, in part because “membership” in Code4Lib is such an amorphous thing. We definitely do not have 3500 active members, no matter what our listserv subscription looks like. But we do get close to 500 attendees at conferences, not all of whom are the same from year to year, so I will be disappointed in us if we don’t get at LEAST that many votes.
Speaking purely practically, I hope that we will see enough votes come in that nobody tries to argue for invalidating the election results because of it. I will be furious if all of this work was for naught.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jason Bengtson <[log in to unmask]>
> I apologize if this is a dumb question, or something I've just missed
> or forgotten, but is there a minimum percentage vote tally required to
> certify a result?
> Best regards,
> *Jason Bengtson*
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kyle Banerjee
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > I would be leery of interpreting abstention in that way. Similar
> > logic
> > been employed in some states to prevent referendums involving tax
> > to be passed.
> > My sense is that the low vote total reflects that people understand
> > this
> > a serious issue requiring an informed decision. Those who don't have
> > the time or background to fully digest what each option means might
> > well hang back rather than unintentionally indicate a preference
> > that could lead to serious problems.
> > In any case, people who feel the current system is fine and don't
> > want to pursue alternatives can affirmatively choose that we keep
> > things as they are.
> > kyle
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes
> > > >> cast,
> > so
> > > >> far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of
> > > >> this
> > > than
> > > >> have voted, yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > > >> 2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FK5MWGNC&data=02%7C01%7Cprbutler%40
> > > >> BSU.EDU%7C13ba8a3039f84d676f8508d51b1d66fe%7C6fff909f07dc40da9e
> > > >> 30fd7549c0f494%7C0%7C0%7C636444735451074274&sdata=qbOGUsFut9JQm
> > > >> U%2BctFpDNqPqBpnParSt93vvGE12C4M%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > > Yes, please vote. Otherwise, I don’t think we — the community --
> > > > will
> > > get enough input to make a sound decision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here’s a radical idea. There are essentially three choice in the vote:
> > >
> > > 1. Do nothing
> > > 2. Incorporate
> > > 3. Partner with fiscal agent
> > >
> > > There are approximately 3,500 people in our community. Each
> > > non-vote
> > could
> > > be counted as a vote for #1. If so, then we are well on track for
> > > doing nothing. 8-D —Earache
> > >