Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

Hello, There needs to be an organization with the people who are apart of Code4lib that does the same things and more. Thanks, Cornel Darden Jr. MSLIS LFCA CIO Casanova Information Services 850 Brook Forest Ave Unit E Shorewood, Illinois (779) 205-3105 http://casanovainfo.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

All I was saying is that the effort to find/create a permanent fiduciary agent and finding a 2017 host can be completely independent of each other, and take parallel paths. I certainly was NOT arguing against seeking a permanent fiduciary. Roy On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Salazar, Christina <

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

But not only that, if we have a permanent (insofar as ANYTHING is permanent) fiduciary agent, we'll have more flexibility in terms of WHO can volunteer to "host" in the future - it wouldn't just be limited to those institutions who are willing to take on $100k + in liability. For example, I

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

Never hurts to have a working group for 2018 and beyond.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

I think it's quite likely that we will have at least one proposal for 2017 -- perhaps more. I don't think we need to worry about 2017. Roy On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brian Rogers wrote: > Agreed on the wording. Because, while at this point I'm guessing we'll be > able

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?

Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was significant support for the idea. I think perhaps the title "formalizing Code4Lib" might be a bit misleading though... We might want to frame the idea as "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" or something along those lines. This

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

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

Sorry about the delay in moderating that: Google jumped into the moderation screen with my work account (which doesn't have permission for that) which was then empty (but didn't obviously say "you're in the wrong account and don't have permission to do this, dummy") so I assumed it was Francis'

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017

I think that this needs to be opened up again to solicit any and all proposals. Doing a back room deal seems quite unlike Code4Lib, even given the need to find another host rapidly. We can do an immediate call for proposals, end it in two weeks, and take a week to vote. Three weeks and done, in an

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

[CODE4LIB] Reminder: Digital Content Intake Survey

There is one more week left in which you can participate in this survey; it closes next weekend. If you've not already contributed your recommendations, guidance and horror stories, please do! http://bit.ly/1Oynxzh Thank you! --jody On 2016-05-17 16:36, Jody L. DeRidder wrote: Do you

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017

I agree that a Call for Proposals should go out and other groups be invited to apply. It is still early enough for an energized group to pull off a Feb/Mar event. Roy On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Becky Yoose wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Francis Kayiwa

Re: [CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017

+1 to a CFP On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Francis Kayiwa wrote: > Hey all, > > We (Christina Harlow and I) are writing to follow up on the message to > from Brian Rogers to Code4lib on 2016-06-07. Specifically the bit > about > > ... > 1. There is a host site that has

[CODE4LIB] Code4lib 2017 is dead; Long Live Code4lib 2017

Hey all, We (Christina Harlow and I) are writing to follow up on the message to from Brian Rogers to Code4lib on 2016-06-07. Specifically the bit about ... 1. There is a host site that has contacted Chattanooga Planning Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and

[CODE4LIB] Job: Web Application Developer at Kalamazoo Public Library

Web Application Developer Kalamazoo Public Library Kalamazoo ** Position Summary:** Responsible for creating and maintaining high quality, innovative solutions that support library websites, applications, databases and the content management system under the general supervision of the Head of

[CODE4LIB] Job: Associate Head, Digital Library Initiatives at North Carolina State University

Associate Head, Digital Library Initiatives North Carolina State University Raleigh The [NCSU Libraries](https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/) invites applications and nominations for the position of[ Associate Head, Digital Library Initiatives.](http://go.ncsu.edu/o8ialb) The [Digital Library

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

Thank you, Coral and Tom. I'd also like us to: 1. stop characterizing regional meetings as DIY, as if we have outsourced the organizing of the national meeting somehow without doing it ourselves. Many people worked hard to put the 2016 meeting (and all the others) on, and they don't deserve to

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

There are advantages and disadvantages of having a loose-y, goose-y community like code4lib. This conversation has surfaced some of the disadvantages. One of the advantages is that there is no need to come to consensus for a group of interested people to harness their collective energy and

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

Eric, I appreciate that you're trying to make a call to action, but this latest email is stunningly condescending. As I'm sure you must know, people in this community do hold regional meetings. These meetings take substantial effort to arrange. The wiki is full of documentation, advice, and

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote: > One note about what we're discussing: when we talk about just doing the > regional events (and I mean beyond 2017, which will be a special case if a > host city can't step in), we need to realize that we have a lot