There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say that it
would require some additional organization.  If another body took Code4Lib
under it's umbrella they would want organizational contacts and some
arrangements in place with whatever served as the governance of Code4Lib
(and I use the term governance here very loosely).  And at the other end of
the spectrum if Code4Lib did something like become a non-profit there are a
number of IRS requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board,
bylaws, etc....

Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that occur
to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have to be a
formal entity spectrum."

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of
> organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to "sign
> for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't their role
> therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent?
> Sorry, but just wondering...
> Laura
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
> Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was significant
> support for the idea.
> I think perhaps the title "formalizing Code4Lib" might be a bit misleading
> though... We might want to frame the idea as "finding a permanent fiduciary
> agent" or something along those lines. This way, we don't have to think
> about major changes all at once.
> I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming
> that there will be a physical one.
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Brian Rogers
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
> Since the Chattanooga Planning Committee inadvertently prompted this
> newest round of conversations around some degree of formalization, would it
> be useful if we threw together a follow-up survey for the community, to
> test the waters around support (or lack there of) for the notion of
> formalizing, to the extent that it allows for a stable place to house the
> annual conference funds? And if it seems like there is overwhelming support
> for the idea, a group of volunteers can band together at that point to
> pursue options to present back to the community?
> ________________________________
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).

Rogan R. Hamby, Data and Project Analyst
Equinox - Open Your Library
[log in to unmask]
1-877-OPEN-ILS |