 |
 |
I support the timeline proposed by Brian. Edward On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Sarah H Shealy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 > > > I think the timeline provided by Brian is reasonable. > > > But it's TN, not NC. > > > Sarah > > ________________________________ > From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jonathan > Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:38:27 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for > Proposals > > I wouldn't have even done a vote at all -- I think when we vote on > conference hosts, we are choosing people to steward the conference and make > sure it happens, as good as it can be using their judgement for what that > looks like and how to make it happen. The fact that the NC folks are > attempting to make sure the torch can get passed instead of just throwing > up their hands and saying "it's back at you, community, we're no longer > involved" shows that stewardship was well-placed. I think it would have > been totally appropriate for them to simply pass the torch. > > But if votes are going to happen, they need to happen as quickly as > possible if you want the conf to actually come off, at least in the > spring. How is "7 days after a credible proposal that includes financial > backing" not an "arbitrary deadline"? Are you willing to wait forever for > such a "credible proposal" to show up? Who decides if it's "credible"? > Once a proposal shows up, anyone else that was trying to work on a proposal > now has exactly 7 days to get one in, but they had no idea what their > deadline was until the first proposal showed up, which hopefully they > noticed on the email list so they know what their deadline is now? Or only > the first proposal to get in gets a yes/no vote, and anyone else doesn't > get included in the vote, first to get the proposal to email wins? > > There are a bunch of different ways it could be done, but calendar dates > are important for an orderly process, and speedy calendar dates are > important for the conf to actually happen, and I think nitpicking and > arguing over the process the NC folks have chosen is pointless, they were > entrusted to steward the thing, the process they've come up with is > reasonable, just go with it. > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > I think that we should avoid arbitrary limits such as a July 1st > deadline. > > We should open up any credible proposal that includes financial backing > to > > discussion and a vote closing seven days after the proposal is posted to > > this list. > > > > Cary > > > > > On Jun 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Brian Rogers <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > > > Greetings once more from the Chattanooga Local Planning Committee - > > > > > > We come with another update regarding the annual Code4Lib conference. > > After the announcement of our survey, two other groups immediately > reached > > out about the possibility of hosting the conference. Of those two, the > one > > that is the most confident about being able to secure a fiscal host and > > still pull off everything within the existing timeframe, is the LA-based > > C4L-SoCal. We spoke with three of their members earlier in the week - > Gary > > Thompson, Christina Salazar, and Joshua Gomez. After discussion, we > > collectively envision a collaboration between the two groups, given the > > effort, energy and commitment the Chattanooga group has already invested. > > The LA group would handle more of the venue and local arrangements, with > > the Chattanooga group helping spearhead other planning elements. > > > > > > Thus, the idea is to host the annual conference in the greater LA area. > > > > > > However, even though Chattanooga's proposal was the only one put forth > > for next year, since this suggestion does reflect a significant change, > and > > because LA is still working on securing a fiscal host, we are proposing > to > > the community the following: > > > > > > - Since a handful of individuals came forth w/alternative cities > > subsequent to my last update, any group who now wishes to put forth a > > proposal, do so by July 1st. > > > - Given the specter of timecrunch, we ask anyone, including LA, who > > would put forth another city, to only do so with written confirmation of > a > > fiscal host by that same deadline. > > > - If more than one city has put forth a proposal and secured a fiscal > > host within that window of time, we will put it to a community vote, with > > polls being left up through July 15th. > > > > > > As always, comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for all the > existing > > feedback, dialogue, various offers people have come forth with, and the > > patience while we try to wrangle up a physical home for 2017. > > > > > > - Brian Rogers > > >