 |
 |
I also disagree that incorporation is the right path for many of the same reasons that Jonathan and Dre wrote. Incorporation will change how Code4Lib exists and operates, but finding a good fiscal partner can give C4L continued freedom to be a community it has been. It's still a step of maturity that Code4Lib needs to do to maintain growth and excellent conferences. Tim On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I have to disagree with Eric, personally. I think incorporation could mean > the death of everything that makes Code4Lib work. To me, the essence of > Code4Lib is its self-organizing nature. Code4Lib isn't an organization; > it's a community. There's no central body, but somehow every year we pull > off the best conference in library technology. We have a robust and > thriving suite of media for communication and idea exchange. No one owns > the Code4Lib brand or concept, and anyone can organize a Code4Lib event > just by using the name and embodying the spirit of Code4Lib. > > What differentiates Code4Lib from other organizations? It's not the passion > of the contributors. It's not the topics we address. It's the way that we > come together as a community organically without needing bylaws, > governance, holdings, presidents, etc., and still make it work every year, > year after year. In short, Code4Lib is the only anarchist collective that > I've ever seen find true success, and that's something special. > > To my eyes, the only ongoing existential challenge that Code4Lib has is > that of fiscal continity *per se*. And if we have an organization that we > trust that's saying, "You can continue to operate exactly how you are now, > but you can count on us to represent you financially when needed," that > seems like the ideal solution. And I think the level of work required for > fiscal stewardship is quite minimal -- we've been doing it every year for > I-don't-know-how-long now; this is just making an existing practice extend > into the longer term. > > Are there benefits to incorporation? Maybe. But will those benefits destroy > the heart of what makes Code4Lib essentially Code4Lib? Without being > melodramatic, I think this is a real possibility. > > I'll be voting for the fiscal sponsorship path. > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > For what it is worth, I will vote for us to incorporate in lieu of us > > doing nothing or partnering with a fiscal agent. I have nothing against > any > > of the fiscal agents. They are all good groups of people with more things > > in common than differences. I just think that if we incorporate, then we > > will have a wider set of options made available to us. The act of > > incorporating will be empowering. I believe incorporating is in the DIY > > spirit of our community. I believe incorporating is in the best interest > of > > Code4Lib. We have all of the necessary resources: cash, experience, and > > vision. All we need to do is the work, which will be almost equal to the > > work involved in creating and managing a relationship with a fiscal > agent. > > I think we can make it happen. —Eric Lease Morgan > > > -- Tim McGeary [log in to unmask] GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary 484-294-7660 (Google Voice)