[CODE4LIB] C4L17 - LA Fiscal Host Announcement
Greetings from the LA (formerly Chattanooga) Proposal Committee - We are pickled as punch and tickled as teeth to inform the community that UCLA Library has agreed to serve as fiscal host for the Code4Lib 2017 Conference. That being said, adhering to our previous post and to the spirit of openness/accountability, we wholly welcome any group who may wish to propose an alternative city for next year's conference. We realize a handful of other individuals had begun earnest conversations in their own states, and do not wish to discount or diminish any additional effort or excitement toward the goal. We know the community at-large has an investment in seeing this gathering of minds occur, and that the desire for an in-person conference is the sole motivating factor in any of our activities. As a reminder, so that any of us can make pragmatic movement toward conference planning, the deadline for proposals, with a secure fiscal host in hand, is July 1st. Once again, we thank everyone for their private and public input, their patience while this gets sorted out, and for their passion as a community in providing a safe and accommodating environment for folks to enjoy and contribute to the conference. - Brian Rogers
[CODE4LIB] C4L17 - Potential Venue Shift to LA and Call for Proposals
Greetings once more from the Chattanooga Local Planning Committee - We come with another update regarding the annual Code4Lib conference. After the announcement of our survey, two other groups immediately reached out about the possibility of hosting the conference. Of those two, the one that is the most confident about being able to secure a fiscal host and still pull off everything within the existing timeframe, is the LA-based C4L-SoCal. We spoke with three of their members earlier in the week - Gary Thompson, Christina Salazar, and Joshua Gomez. After discussion, we collectively envision a collaboration between the two groups, given the effort, energy and commitment the Chattanooga group has already invested. The LA group would handle more of the venue and local arrangements, with the Chattanooga group helping spearhead other planning elements. Thus, the idea is to host the annual conference in the greater LA area. However, even though Chattanooga's proposal was the only one put forth for next year, since this suggestion does reflect a significant change, and because LA is still working on securing a fiscal host, we are proposing to the community the following: - Since a handful of individuals came forth w/alternative cities subsequent to my last update, any group who now wishes to put forth a proposal, do so by July 1st. - Given the specter of timecrunch, we ask anyone, including LA, who would put forth another city, to only do so with written confirmation of a fiscal host by that same deadline. - If more than one city has put forth a proposal and secured a fiscal host within that window of time, we will put it to a community vote, with polls being left up through July 15th. As always, comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for all the existing feedback, dialogue, various offers people have come forth with, and the patience while we try to wrangle up a physical home for 2017. - Brian Rogers
[CODE4LIB] On-Premise vs. Cloud Storage for Archival Files
Hi - looking to speak w/anyone who has shifted from on-premise to cloud storage (Glacier, Nearline, Azure, et al) for archival/production master files. I hope to gain a sense of how workflows were impacted, as well as shifting from a "one-time" cost to monthly/annual recurring cost. I imagine I might have enough questions to warrant a phone call or off-listserv email. Thanks in advance (& apologies for cross-posting). - Brian
Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
Never hurts to have a working group for 2018 and beyond.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
Agreed on the wording. Because, while at this point I'm guessing we'll be able to find a physical home for 2017... if per chance that doesn't happen... the rollover money from last year's conference presumably has to go somewhere, in the interim.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
Since the Chattanooga Planning Committee inadvertently prompted this newest round of conversations around some degree of formalization, would it be useful if we threw together a follow-up survey for the community, to test the waters around support (or lack there of) for the notion of formalizing, to the extent that it allows for a stable place to house the annual conference funds? And if it seems like there is overwhelming support for the idea, a group of volunteers can band together at that point to pursue options to present back to the community?
Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017
Ross - no worries whatsoever. Any one who does any kind of online moderation is already up for sainthood in my book. :)
Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017
I would refer to it less as a back room deal and more to it as, "hey remember when no one else aside from Chattanooga submitted a proposal the first go-around and there were only two groups who reached out after Andrea's first email several weeks back in the spirit of rescuing this thing well this is the second of those two groups" sort of conversation. But certainly if several cities want to put in for it now, by all means. Up to the community.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017
Hi Francis - I sent a reply to your code4libconf Google Group post... but looks like it's still in moderation mode. We're speaking w/the other group on Monday afternoon in a conference call. We'll have concrete information to share after that. - Brian
Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
It is a confluence of considerations, rather than a question of percentage.
[CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee: This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email (https://goo.gl/bs2au7) regarding the survey around potential impact on attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee. Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals who took the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues at hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last Tuesday to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers. We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to providing a safe and accommodating environment for all attendees, it is morally and fiscally irresponsible to continue the effort of hosting the annual conference in Chattanooga. This decision was not an easy one, and there were hours of discussion as to the pros and cons of proceeding, informed by your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions. This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a fiscal host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance and increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or wholly informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend with an unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott. Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to the Code4Lib community: 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no other city submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful. 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then we suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We already have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that virtual cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. However, given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a stable, consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious community, this year is a hard sell across many of the states. 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We realize, of course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a predicament, unless another region wishes to adopt us. Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We invite any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here, Slack, IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be lurking these days. And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect to those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing the raw numbers and not the freeform responses. Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: 22.58% Yes, I would boycott. 77.42% No, I would not boycott. Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: 26.61% Yes, I would boycott. 73.38% No, I would not boycott. Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses: 46.34% Yes, I would boycott. 53.66% No, I would not boycott. Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the conference, would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 Responses: 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending. 19.83% No, I would still boycott. 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.) Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would you consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal funds and on your personal time? 122 Responses: 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend. 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend. -- Brian Rogers Director of Library IT & Professor UTC Library, Dept. 6456 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Phone: 423-425-5279 Email: brian-rog...@utc.edu
[CODE4LIB] IT Refresh Cycles
Hi - Is anyone responsible for IT refresh cycles in their library? This could be anything from computers to projectors, switches to routers, servers to media players. Looking to see who people turn to for industry standards (within libraries, or within colleges/universities, or the outside world), in researching recommendations and policies. Thanks, Brian Rogers
[CODE4LIB] OU Campus
Hi - Anyone here have any experience w/implementing OmniUpdate's CMS, OU Campus, in their library? Our campus is pursuing this path for a site-wide redesign we have the option to partner with them. In the interest of making an informed decision, we're asking around: a) to see if there have been any technical hiccups or difficulties that other libraries have encountered b) general experiences w/this particular vendor. Thanks! Brian Rogers brian-rog...@utc.edu http://www.lib.utc.edu/
