 |
 |
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] > >>>> > >> >