 |
 |
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] > >> >