 |
 |
I did look at this while I was at LYRASIS a few years ago. (I'm now at Cherry Hill -- soon to be at Index Data -- http://dltj.org/p27236 ). At the time they had an "association management" division that did this sort of thing. They disbanded that division before I left, but they are under new executive leadership now, so they might be interested in doing it again. Peter > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I > don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the > community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be > interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be > somethign to look into. > > Edward > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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] -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager, Cherry Hill Company Blogger, Disruptive Library Technology Jester - http://dltj.org/