 |
 |
+1 -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah H Shealy Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for Proposals +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 >