 |
 |
It is true that the Community has held 12 annual conferences without formalization. And yes, it is likely *possible* to continue with the current model of every conference being essentially a separate entity, and support from the larger community being on an ad-hoc basis. But the reason we are having this discussion is that this is not a particularly good option -- it depends not only on good will, but (as Coral has noted) dumb luck as well. It also means more stress and effort on the part of each year's organizers than necessary. However, if we *do* form a relationship with another entity (or self-incorporate), some person or persons will sign an agreement that binds us, however you define "us", to a course of action that will likely span several conferences. This is indeed a significantly different type of decision than has come before, and it requires a different way of doing business. Everybody has had a bad experience or two with bureaucracy, but the current approach of trying to maintain Code4Lib as an amorphous entity with no systematic way of arriving at a decision or definable point of contact has real and tangible drawbacks. So, in the spirit of the current way of doing things, I propose the formation of an ad-hoc, self-nominated committee (perhaps the last of its kind) to investigate a formal governance structure for Code4Lib and then assist the Community with its implementation. If you're interested in joining me, please contact me off-list: [log in to unmask] > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:35:13 -0400 > From: Adam Constabaris <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: What's so bad about bylaws? > It's an interesting question, but code4lib -- whatever exactly that is -- > has managed to make all sorts of decisions, about where to hold > conferences, keynote speakers, etc. for over a decade without formalizing. > I am unclear on the exact details, but there is some carryover of > conference funds from year to year and if I had to guess -- and this is a > guess -- it relies on the good will of the previous year's fiscal sponsor(s) > transferring the funds to the upcoming year's fiscal sponsor(s). However > exactly that process works, it's happened multiple times at the direction > of the community; each time, though, different parties are involved. > The F*C*IG is attempting to address (among other things) the tenuousness of > that arrangement, and they've identified a number of proposals that appear > to yield enough formal organization to ensure continuity. The > decision doesn't strike me as more momentous or different in kind from the ones code4lib has > made in the past, and shouldn't require any new mechanisms. Ed Sperr Clinical Information Librarian AU/UGA Medical Partnership Athens, GA [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]