+1 to delegate to committee. - kc On 7/26/17 9:16 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that, first > figure out if people agree the status quo is no good... > > We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG. > They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the various > options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on getting more > information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need to create > another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom proposes, I > think. > > I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal > Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making > practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as > the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the > ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ). > > I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think it's > info for the Fiscal Continuity WG. They'd probably follow it, unless they > have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be > disastrous. > > I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the > poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more > questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the > status quo, then...". > > I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the > community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip > that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for > people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any > of the options presented. > > I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is > fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and > that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by > discussion. > > Jonathan > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the >> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions >> apart, I think we should start with one simple question: >> >> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib: >> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or >> b. maintain the status quo? >> >> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed with >> a mandate to >> >> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on the >> Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones), >> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib community, >> and >> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation >> paperwork on behalf of the community. >> >> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue >> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to >> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization. >> >> - Tom >> >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]<mailto: >> [log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them >> mentioned in the email thread so far. >> >> As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC >> Conference, here are some things that I would like to share. >> >> --- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L >> people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only >> those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in >> an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library >> to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose >> and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be >> lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more >> diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and >> participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation >> and location. >> >> (Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of >> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no >> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same >> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what >> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the >> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't >> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal, >> period.) >> >> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as >> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc. >> These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will >> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with >> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our >> conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference >> planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics >> saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience >> (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee >> volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and >> professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and >> worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L >> conference. >> >> --- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT >> required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this >> year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for >> the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in >> terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib >> community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor >> would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal >> sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is >> limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated >> and finalized by the C4L LPC. >> >> Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting >> up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that >> that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating >> successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion + >> occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal >> entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far >> greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with >> a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in >> annual conference logistics. >> >> Cheers, >> Bohyun >> >> -- >> Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS >> Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore >> Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland. >> edu/ >> Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology >> Association: http://www.lita.org >> >> <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/> >> ________________________________ >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]<mailto: >> [log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee < >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM >> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has >> been deafening] >> >> On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:tod@ >> uchicago.edu>> wrote: >> >> If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to >> receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these >> purposes. >> >> >> Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest >> much energy in journal royalties -- it's a simple issue and the distance >> between best and worst case scenarios is narrow. >> >> C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen >> because people do things. The domain name, systems, and everything we rely >> on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning >> that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be >> desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the >> process of finding a fiscal home. >> >> Kyle >> >> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600