 |
 |
I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership committee. So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them. I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more info on how the arrangement works. -Esmé > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to > enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity? > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official >> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for >> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover, >> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.). An existing >> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead. >> >> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of >> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement >> for another year, including the MOU: >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ >> >> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more >> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit >> organization. So having a financial host arrangement could be a >> lighter-weight option. >> >> -Esmé >> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, >> Christina! >>> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't >>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the >>> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that >> takes >>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get >>> the process started. >>> >>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the >>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my >>> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to >>> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community, >>> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate >>> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my >> gut >>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or >>> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should >>> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff? >>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the >>> options are, right now. >>> >>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a >> flat >>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is >>> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or >> even >>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is >>> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how >> to >>> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? >> Having >>> some kind of formal structure would help. >>> >>> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help? >>> >>> - Coral >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina < >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to >>>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF >>>> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference. >>>> >>>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in >> front >>>> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to >>>> cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary >>>> organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple >> thousand >>>> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND >>>> DOLLARS liability. >>>> >>>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term. >>>> >>>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but >> my >>>> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the >>>> conference... Or choose to go local only.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga >>>> >>>> Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee: >>>> >>>> This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email ( >>>> https://goo.gl/bs2au7) regarding the survey around potential impact on >>>> attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of >>>> discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee. >>>> >>>> Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals who >> took >>>> the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues at >>>> hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last >> Tuesday >>>> to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy >>>> questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers. >>>> >>>> We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to providing a >>>> safe and accommodating environment for all attendees, it is morally and >>>> fiscally irresponsible to continue the effort of hosting the annual >>>> conference in Chattanooga. This decision was not an easy one, and there >>>> were hours of discussion as to the pros and cons of proceeding, >> informed by >>>> your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions. >>>> >>>> This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a >> fiscal >>>> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple >>>> institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance >> and >>>> increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally >>>> confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or wholly >>>> informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend with >> an >>>> unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott. >>>> >>>> Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading >>>> together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to >> the >>>> Code4Lib community: >>>> >>>> 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning >>>> Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and >>>> should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no other >> city >>>> submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and >>>> responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful. >>>> 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then we >>>> suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We >> already >>>> have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the >>>> implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that virtual >>>> cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. However, >>>> given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a stable, >>>> consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious community, >> this >>>> year is a hard sell across many of the states. >>>> 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person >>>> regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We realize, >> of >>>> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a >> predicament, >>>> unless another region wishes to adopt us. >>>> >>>> Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the >>>> planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in >>>> Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We >> invite >>>> any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here, >> Slack, >>>> IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be >>>> lurking these days. >>>> >>>> And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect >> to >>>> those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing the >>>> raw numbers and not the freeform responses. >>>> >>>> Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you >> boycott >>>> Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: >>>> >>>> 22.58% Yes, I would boycott. >>>> 77.42% No, I would not boycott. >>>> >>>> Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill, >>>> would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: >>>> >>>> 26.61% Yes, I would boycott. >>>> 73.38% No, I would not boycott. >>>> >>>> Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you >>>> boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses: >>>> >>>> 46.34% Yes, I would boycott. >>>> 53.66% No, I would not boycott. >>>> >>>> Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the conference, >>>> would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an >>>> organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 >> Responses: >>>> >>>> 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending. >>>> 19.83% No, I would still boycott. >>>> 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.) >>>> >>>> Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would >> you >>>> consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal >> funds >>>> and on your personal time? 122 Responses: >>>> >>>> 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend. >>>> 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brian Rogers >>>> Director of Library IT & Professor >>>> UTC Library, Dept. 6456 >>>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga >>>> Phone: 423-425-5279 >>>> Email: [log in to unmask] >>>> >>