 |
 |
I've been pondering about this a fair amount. I don't think Code4Lib is an "amorphous entity with no systematic way of arriving at a decision or definable point of contact". Rather, it is a decentralized community with long-established norms and consensus-based procedures for discerning the will of the community. The community has been able to accomplish a great deal using volunteers and, for the lack of a better word, trustees. The trustees have been largely self-appointed or have responded to community requests. These trustees manage assets and capabilities for the benefit of the community. The asset that has put the largest burden on the part of the trustee has been the annual conference and the corresponding fiscal liabilities. Because of the burden of this trusteeship, it has been handed off from trustee to trustee. I think it would help if we reframed the discussion away from "formalizing governance of Code4Lib" to "improving the fiscal continuity of a trustee for one (or more) of the Code4Lib community assets/liabilities", which I think the fiscal continuity group has advanced considerably. There has been some good work done in developing and documenting the norms and procedures in our community. For example: https://code4lib.org/about <https://code4lib.org/about> https://wiki.code4lib.org/How_to_hack_code4lib <https://wiki.code4lib.org/How_to_hack_code4lib> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m-9VtL7L_fUxl2hTF_YZSdFRfucaLtmHvLSzom6XPVM/edit?pli=1#heading=h.99orczg96qj5 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m-9VtL7L_fUxl2hTF_YZSdFRfucaLtmHvLSzom6XPVM/edit?pli=1#heading=h.99orczg96qj5> https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md <https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md> It may be useful to further document Code4lib's consensus-based procedures and policies for the benefit of legal entities that need to work with us, but a formal governance structure for the community (as opposed to that of an asset trustee) is something that I don't think the community needs or wants. Also, I think the notion that we're indebted to "dumb luck" forgets that "luck" is created by a lot of hard work. Eric > On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:01 AM, EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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]