 |
 |
We waited 13 or so years, so what's a few more days? I agree that we should wait for all the information to come in from OLF and DuraSpace. Edward On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > While I'm usually all for calling the question as quickly as possible(!), > the FCIG is waiting on proposals from OLF and DuraSpace, before we hold the > vote -- we already have one of those, and it just needs to be put into the > report/shared out -- so that the community can make as well-informed a > decision, with as many good options, as possible. > > Best, > Coral > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Well then, I know how I will vote. Why fix what ain't broke? As I recall, > > that was our response to me calling the non-profit question back at the > > first Code4Lib Conference. Since there was no strong reason to become a > > non-profit at that time, we shrugged our shoulders and moved on. Since > > CLIR/DLF is fine with the way things are, then so am I. > > Roy > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Bethany Nowviskie <[log in to unmask] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, folks — this is just to clarify that, from the CLIR/DLF point of > > view, > > > no incorporation or greater formalization than already exists in the > > > community would be necessary for us to extend our current fiscal > > > sponsorship (of the conference, etc.) to the long term. > > > > > > Coral quoted it earlier, but here’s the relevant bit from the FCIG > > report: > > > > > > CLIR would not request any control over Code4Lib’s > > > organizational/"governance” processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or > > > DLF’s bylaws. > > > In terms of contact persons between Code4Lib and CLIR/DLF, CLIR > expressed > > > familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and > indicated > > > that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single point > of > > > contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to CLIR > or > > > DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing > committees > > > and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities that > > > currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some > other > > > groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on > > hosting > > > of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how > > grassroots > > > leadership happens in the community!" > > > > > > We’re not big on red tape, either, and I think — even though it can get > > > messy or stall out a little, sometimes! — decision-making, leadership, > > and > > > lazy consensus in C4L is a wonder to behold, not to be overly > > messed-with. > > > > > > Happy to answer any questions, when voting plans get to the right > stage. > > I > > > understand a message from Galen on behalf of the FCIG is on its way. — > B. > > > > > > Bethany Nowviskie > > > Director of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) at CLIR > > > Research Associate Professor of Digital Humanities, UVa > > > diglib.org<http://diglib.org> | clir.org<http://clir.org> | ndsa.org< > > > http://ndsa.org> | nowviskie.org<http://nowviskie.org> | she/her/hers > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:18:03 -0400 > > > From: Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > > > [log in to unmask]>> > > > Subject: Re: Governance for Code4Lib > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > > eric@ > > > hellman.net>> wrote: > > > > > > To follow up on Andromeda's calling the question, we need to do some > > > things in addition to the usual dieboldotron. > > > > > > 1. There's a point of fact that is still being disputed/discussed: > > whether > > > formalization is required by potential fiscal sponsor. It's > > straightforward > > > to answer this before any poll is conducted - ask the potential fiscal > > > sponsors to weigh in on the question. > > > > > > Hasn't that been settled by Bohyun's message yesterday? > > > > > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]< > > mailto: > > > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > > > Jonathan is right, Cary. I am on this year's LPC for the next year's > C4L > > > conference at DC, and we are already working with DLF as a fiscal > > sponsor. > > > No legal entity status was required. > > > > > > Or is there some question that the requirements may be different for a > > > long-term fiscal sponsorship, as opposed to a one-time sponsorship? > > > > > > -Esmé > > > > > >