Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:
> - organizing itself and setting some deadlines

The first meeting will take place tomorrow (1 July) at noon EDT; the
agenda (which is entirely concerned with bootstrapping the IG) and a
link to the Google Hangout can be found at:

http://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Meeting_2016_07_01

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
gmcha...@gmail.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Cynthia Ng]

Just want to thank Galen and Coral for setting this up and the IG (whoever
gets involved and contributes) for their interest and efforts in moving
this discussion forward.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess
>  wrote:
> > Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to investigate
> > making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable? Does someone want to *organize*
> that
> > group? (Put the group on some communications medium, make deadlines, keep
> > people on task -- stuff like that.)
>
> After consulting with Coral, I'm volunteering to act as cat-herder for
> this group.  I've created a page on the wiki for it (and given it the
> name "Fiscal Continuity Interest Group"):
>
> http://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity
>
> The IG will use a Google group for most communications; anybody can
> view, and anybody who desires to contribute to the discussion can
> request an invite.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/c4l-financial-options
>
> I should mention that not all research and discussions by the IG will
> be completely open: some budgetary documents that we'll be looking
> cannot be published in full or at all, and some discussions with
> potential fiscal hosts will require discretion to avoid prematurely
> committing to any decision.
>
> As Coral suggested, the IG will act as a task group with a limited
> duration: we'll research and make recommendations for the Code4Lib
> community to consider. After that, the IG as it is currently
> constituted will end, although some of its members may continue on to
> help implement a scheme for fiscal continuity if there's the general
> assent and will to do so.
>
> Some steps the IG will be taking in the near future include:
>
> - organizing itself and setting some deadlines
> - sending out a survey to get more information about options and
> community preferences
> - enlisting the aid of experts as we do our work
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> gmcha...@gmail.com
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Andromeda Yelton]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> I'm rather surprised that nobody has suggested contacting:
> - the American Library Association (particularly the LITA division)
>

I have not made the offer because I think c4l should approach LITA and not
the other way around, but we would be open to having this conversation.
(With the understanding that there would be quite a lot to discuss!)

-- 
Andromeda Yelton
Board of Directors/Vice-President Elect, Library & Information Technology
Association: http://www.lita.org
http://andromedayelton.com
@ThatAndromeda 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Cary Gordon]

I could be a resource for this conversation. I have been slow to jump into this 
conversation, as I have been involved in many past discussions on this topic, 
to no end.

I was deeply involved in the organizing of DrupalCons and the formation and 
governance of the Drupal Association. I don’t propose the DA or DrupalCon as a 
model or template for c4l or the con, but my peculiar skill set — I produced 
over 1,800 live events in a previous job/lifetime, may be of use.

Cary

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Beatrice Pulliam  wrote:
> 
> I have some experience being on the fiscal agent side of an MOU arrangement 
> and hammering those out, and would like to help.
> 
> Beatrice
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:01 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Now, there kind of is. By my count, we have 4 volunteers. Chad, Tom, Galen,
>>> and me. Anyone else?
>> 
>> Coral, please sign me up. I’d like to learn more. —Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Beatrice Pulliam]

I have some experience being on the fiscal agent side of an MOU arrangement and 
hammering those out, and would like to help.

Beatrice

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:01 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Now, there kind of is. By my count, we have 4 volunteers. Chad, Tom, Galen,
>> and me. Anyone else?
> 
>  Coral, please sign me up. I’d like to learn more. —Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:01 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:

> Now, there kind of is. By my count, we have 4 volunteers. Chad, Tom, Galen,
> and me. Anyone else?

  Coral, please sign me up. I’d like to learn more. —Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Miles Fidelman]

On 6/14/16 12:43 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Miles Fidelman 
wrote:


I'm rather surprised that nobody has suggested contacting:
- the American Library Association (particularly the LITA division)
- the Internet Archive

Or... the Tides Foundation (tides.org in San Francisco) has been known to
act as fiscal agent and "umbrella" for small non-profit projects/groups.

Or... maybe even the Apache Software Foundation or FSF.


Even if another organization is willing to serve in this capacity, it is
essential to understand exactly what that means. How independent would c4l
be under the arrangement? Would the relationship alter the nature of c4l
itself?

For example, if LITA steps up, would people need to be LITA members to
attend events? Even if they don't have to be, would there be a shift in
participation? How much say would LITA have over format, policies, etc?

One of the challenges of fundraising for c4l meetings is a lot of people
and companies (understandably) want to earmark their donation regardless
what is actually needed. Presumably anyone willing to take on to take on
much greater financial and administrative headaches will attach some
strings.

There are real advantages to working with other organizations, but there
are downsides as well.



If the major concern is to open a bank account & take donations to 
sponsor meetings, conferences, etc. - the obvious move is to ask another 
organization to be fiscal agent and co-sponsor for the meetings/events - 
with a clear, written agreement about who does what to whom.


Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Miles Fidelman 
wrote:

> I'm rather surprised that nobody has suggested contacting:
> - the American Library Association (particularly the LITA division)
> - the Internet Archive
>
> Or... the Tides Foundation (tides.org in San Francisco) has been known to
> act as fiscal agent and "umbrella" for small non-profit projects/groups.
>
> Or... maybe even the Apache Software Foundation or FSF.


Even if another organization is willing to serve in this capacity, it is
essential to understand exactly what that means. How independent would c4l
be under the arrangement? Would the relationship alter the nature of c4l
itself?

For example, if LITA steps up, would people need to be LITA members to
attend events? Even if they don't have to be, would there be a shift in
participation? How much say would LITA have over format, policies, etc?

One of the challenges of fundraising for c4l meetings is a lot of people
and companies (understandably) want to earmark their donation regardless
what is actually needed. Presumably anyone willing to take on to take on
much greater financial and administrative headaches will attach some
strings.

There are real advantages to working with other organizations, but there
are downsides as well.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Ross Singer]

Sorry about that!  SO.  MANY.  THREADS.

Anyway, sign me up on being on board with exploring that route, as well.

-Ross.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Kari R Smith <smit...@mit.edu> wrote:

> See again my post from 6/8 on this idea.
>
> Kari Smith
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Ross Singer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:51 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> I kind of agree with Shaun's point: why on earth would some organization
> want to assume this?
>
> In the interest of not limiting ourselves to one solution to this problem,
> I'll throw another possibility that I haven't seen raised (and definitely
> has downsides, but they all do):  what if we to set aside the
> organizational aspects of the annual conference and try to find an existing
> conference that Code4Lib could be a track or sub-conference or whatever
> within?  I'm not suggesting these conferences, per se, but using them for
> analogy: what would the downside of existing *within* ALA or CIL or an
> established conference be?  Are there advantages?  Are there conferences
> that would be particularly good fits?  Would we just be pushing our current
> headaches into other compartments?
>
> I guess for me, I'm not so hell-bent on the annual conference being it's
> own exclusive event as much as being able to have it at all.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Galen Charlton <g...@esilibrary.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess
> > <co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote:
> > > Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to
> > > investigate making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable?
> >
> > I am interested in joining such a group. I have some relevant
> > experience to share, including stints as a member and chair of the
> > Evergreen project's oversight board. The Evergreen project became a
> > member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy in 2011; since
> > then, its conferences have been organized with Conservancy acting as
> > fiduciary and fiscal agent.
> >
> > --
> > Galen Charlton
> > Infrastructure and Added Services Manager Equinox Software, Inc. /
> > Open Your Library
> > email:  g...@esilibrary.com
> > direct: +1 770-709-5581
> > cell:   +1 404-984-4366
> > skype:  gmcharlt
> > web:http://www.esilibrary.com/
> > Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> > http://evergreen-ils.org
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Miles Fidelman]

I'm rather surprised that nobody has suggested contacting:
- the American Library Association (particularly the LITA division)
- the Internet Archive

Or... the Tides Foundation (tides.org in San Francisco) has been known 
to act as fiscal agent and "umbrella" for small non-profit projects/groups.


Or... maybe even the Apache Software Foundation or FSF.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Kari R Smith]

See again my post from 6/8 on this idea.

Kari Smith

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross 
Singer
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:51 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

I kind of agree with Shaun's point: why on earth would some organization want 
to assume this?

In the interest of not limiting ourselves to one solution to this problem, I'll 
throw another possibility that I haven't seen raised (and definitely has 
downsides, but they all do):  what if we to set aside the organizational 
aspects of the annual conference and try to find an existing conference that 
Code4Lib could be a track or sub-conference or whatever within?  I'm not 
suggesting these conferences, per se, but using them for
analogy: what would the downside of existing *within* ALA or CIL or an 
established conference be?  Are there advantages?  Are there conferences that 
would be particularly good fits?  Would we just be pushing our current 
headaches into other compartments?

I guess for me, I'm not so hell-bent on the annual conference being it's own 
exclusive event as much as being able to have it at all.

-Ross.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Galen Charlton <g...@esilibrary.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
> <co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote:
> > Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to 
> > investigate making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable?
>
> I am interested in joining such a group. I have some relevant 
> experience to share, including stints as a member and chair of the 
> Evergreen project's oversight board. The Evergreen project became a 
> member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy in 2011; since 
> then, its conferences have been organized with Conservancy acting as 
> fiduciary and fiscal agent.
>
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Infrastructure and Added Services Manager Equinox Software, Inc. / 
> Open Your Library
> email:  g...@esilibrary.com
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell:   +1 404-984-4366
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:http://www.esilibrary.com/
> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & 
> http://evergreen-ils.org
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Ross Singer]

I kind of agree with Shaun's point: why on earth would some organization
want to assume this?

In the interest of not limiting ourselves to one solution to this problem,
I'll throw another possibility that I haven't seen raised (and definitely
has downsides, but they all do):  what if we to set aside the
organizational aspects of the annual conference and try to find an existing
conference that Code4Lib could be a track or sub-conference or whatever
within?  I'm not suggesting these conferences, per se, but using them for
analogy: what would the downside of existing *within* ALA or CIL or an
established conference be?  Are there advantages?  Are there conferences
that would be particularly good fits?  Would we just be pushing our current
headaches into other compartments?

I guess for me, I'm not so hell-bent on the annual conference being it's
own exclusive event as much as being able to have it at all.

-Ross.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess
>  wrote:
> > Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to investigate
> > making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable?
>
> I am interested in joining such a group. I have some relevant
> experience to share, including stints as a member and chair of the
> Evergreen project's oversight board. The Evergreen project became a
> member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy in 2011; since
> then, its conferences have been organized with Conservancy acting as
> fiduciary and fiscal agent.
>
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
> Equinox Software, Inc. / Open Your Library
> email:  g...@esilibrary.com
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell:   +1 404-984-4366
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:http://www.esilibrary.com/
> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> http://evergreen-ils.org
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Carol Bean]

++
interesting recording of their talk on youtube, including a (brief) one on
501c3 vs. 501c6 vs. no profit corp entity

Carol

Carol Bean
beanwo...@gmail.com

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:55 AM, BWS Johnson 
wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> Anyone thinking about this might want to plug in 0wn the Con +
> Shmoocon into the Google Machine.[TM] If anything, that's a larger
> Conference. They can be very granular with technology needs. Just don't
> copy their fanboy atmosphere, please.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brooke
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[BWS Johnson]

Salvete!

Anyone thinking about this might want to plug in 0wn the Con + Shmoocon 
into the Google Machine.[TM] If anything, that's a larger Conference. They can 
be very granular with technology needs. Just don't copy their fanboy 
atmosphere, please.  


Cheers,
Brooke

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Tom Johnson]

> Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to investigate
> making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable? Does someone want to *organize* that
> group? (Put the group on some communications medium, make deadlines, keep
> people on task -- stuff like that.) To be clear: nobody is proposing that
> it be a decision-making body; it would just be a fact-finding group, who
> would write up a list of the options to present to the larger community
> (and maybe preside over some kind of vote? I don't know, I guess the group
> will decide how to get the community to make decisions, too).

I would like to be a member of this group. Let's do the legal due
diligence, put out
feelers for partner orgs, and agree on a voting procedure.

- Tom

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> If we wait to start talking about it until conference 2017, that means
> conference committee 2018 will have to find its own temporary fiscal agent.
> Or 2018 could just not happen at all, I guess.
>
> Even if we do all the pre-work and just wait to make the decision at the
> conference, that doesn't leave much wiggle room for 2018.
>
> Also, if we only talk about it in person, we leave out everyone who is
> unable to attend conference. That's potentially a lot of interested people.
> I'm not sure we want to become *that *kind of library organization; our
> virtual decision-making model is one of our most attractive features, in my
> opinion (speaking as someone with disabilities and an uneven budget over
> the last few years).
>
> So I would encourage anyone interested in exploring fiscal
> sponsorship/becoming a nonprofit/[other solutions?] to form a group/task
> force/committee/whatever and to start researching options now, with a
> reasonable deadline for communicating back out to the whole community, so
> that we can all take part in making an informed decision before the 2018
> conference committee needs to get started (if, indeed, our community's
> consensus is to do 2018).
>
> Chad volunteered to help, and his knowledge about the 2016 process and
> budgets will make him incredibly helpful. We should take him up on that. I
> volunteered to help, and my previous research on starting a nonprofit
> and/or finding a fiscal sponsor for a previous project will make me also
> potentially helpful. Maybe we should take me up on that, or maybe the
> committee should not have anyone *quite* as in favor of radical change (or
> as new to the community) as I am. I defer to the group on that, once it
> forms.
>
> Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to investigate
> making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable? Does someone want to *organize* that
> group? (Put the group on some communications medium, make deadlines, keep
> people on task -- stuff like that.) To be clear: nobody is proposing that
> it be a decision-making body; it would just be a fact-finding group, who
> would write up a list of the options to present to the larger community
> (and maybe preside over some kind of vote? I don't know, I guess the group
> will decide how to get the community to make decisions, too).
>
> - Coral
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

If we wait to start talking about it until conference 2017, that means
conference committee 2018 will have to find its own temporary fiscal agent.
Or 2018 could just not happen at all, I guess.

Even if we do all the pre-work and just wait to make the decision at the
conference, that doesn't leave much wiggle room for 2018.

Also, if we only talk about it in person, we leave out everyone who is
unable to attend conference. That's potentially a lot of interested people.
I'm not sure we want to become *that *kind of library organization; our
virtual decision-making model is one of our most attractive features, in my
opinion (speaking as someone with disabilities and an uneven budget over
the last few years).

So I would encourage anyone interested in exploring fiscal
sponsorship/becoming a nonprofit/[other solutions?] to form a group/task
force/committee/whatever and to start researching options now, with a
reasonable deadline for communicating back out to the whole community, so
that we can all take part in making an informed decision before the 2018
conference committee needs to get started (if, indeed, our community's
consensus is to do 2018).

Chad volunteered to help, and his knowledge about the 2016 process and
budgets will make him incredibly helpful. We should take him up on that. I
volunteered to help, and my previous research on starting a nonprofit
and/or finding a fiscal sponsor for a previous project will make me also
potentially helpful. Maybe we should take me up on that, or maybe the
committee should not have anyone *quite* as in favor of radical change (or
as new to the community) as I am. I defer to the group on that, once it
forms.

Does anyone else want to self-nominate, to join a group to investigate
making Code4Lib fiscally sustainable? Does someone want to *organize* that
group? (Put the group on some communications medium, make deadlines, keep
people on task -- stuff like that.) To be clear: nobody is proposing that
it be a decision-making body; it would just be a fact-finding group, who
would write up a list of the options to present to the larger community
(and maybe preside over some kind of vote? I don't know, I guess the group
will decide how to get the community to make decisions, too).

- Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Salazar, Christina]

Am I misunderstanding Roy and/or Francis's intention though that given 
essentially a full year to plan C4L 2017, that either they or entities that 
they have strong connections too are willing to be the fiscal agent for 2017? 
That's what I thought they were implying. Both indicated that they could pull 
of a big conference for 2017.

So perhaps we can discuss the matter of finding a "permanent" fiscal agent face 
to face at conference in 2017

Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward 
M. Corrado
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:30 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

Generally speaking, what the fiduciary agent normally would get rewarded in 
money. Arrangements can vary of course, but basically they would get a portion 
of the income of the event.

Edward

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Shaun D. Ellis <sha...@princeton.edu>
wrote:

> I agree that securing a permanent fiscal agent is the only way to 
> sustain the annual conference at the current level, but I think there 
> are ways to make a less formal commitment.  What I don’t understand is 
> what any fiduciary agent gets out of such a deal.  There is 
> significant risk and overhead for anyone to take this on.  What is the reward?
>
> Overhead
> It’s not just about fronting money and signing contracts.  There is 
> people power involved too.  For 2016, I reviewed every contract and 
> agreement that came through because my hide was on the line if we 
> screwed up.  It’s not hard to miss something in the fine print, or to 
> find estimates and invoices that don’t add up.  Furthermore, there 
> were people in our finance department who had to do extra work to set 
> up the account, cut checks, double-check contracts, communicate with vendors, 
> etc.
>
> Risk
> While we have not yet gone "into the red" on an annual Code4Lib 
> conference (knock on wood), it is certainly possible unless there is a 
> degree of vigilance on the part of the organizers.  Because you have 
> different organizers each year there can be large fluctuations when it 
> comes to fundraising/sponsorship effort and experience.  The same goes 
> for researching, negotiating, and comparing vendor and venue prices.  
> We do pass on documentation as best we can, but the process is rarely 
> cookie cutter.
>
> Reward
> Is the reward simply “thanks” and a pat on the back?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  (For 
> what it’s worth, I could see a high-visibility sponsor spot given to 
> this org since it's a form of in-kind donated resources.)
>
> Even if Code4Lib were to form a non-profit to strictly handle the 
> annual conf, someone’s hide needs to be on the line to make sure 
> there’s proper oversight of funds, budgets are properly formed and 
> adhered to, contracts are not putting the org at risk, and so on.  To 
> me, that sounds like a dedicated employee of the non-profit.
>
> -Shaun
>
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Rogan Hamby <rha...@esilibrary.com rha...@esilibrary.com>> wrote:
>
> There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say 
> that it would require some additional organization.  If another body 
> took Code4Lib under it's umbrella they would want organizational 
> contacts and some arrangements in place with whatever served as the 
> governance of Code4Lib (and I use the term governance here very 
> loosely).  And at the other end of the spectrum if Code4Lib did 
> something like become a non-profit there are a number of IRS 
> requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board, bylaws, etc
>
> Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that 
> occur to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have 
> to be a formal entity spectrum."
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <lib...@emory.edu lib...@emory.edu>> wrote:
>
> Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of 
> organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to 
> "sign for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't 
> their role therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent?
>
> Sorry, but just wondering...
>
> Laura
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was 
> significant su

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Edward M. Corrado]

Generally speaking, what the fiduciary agent normally would get rewarded in
money. Arrangements can vary of course, but basically they would get a
portion of the income of the event.

Edward

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Shaun D. Ellis <sha...@princeton.edu>
wrote:

> I agree that securing a permanent fiscal agent is the only way to sustain
> the annual conference at the current level, but I think there are ways to
> make a less formal commitment.  What I don’t understand is what any
> fiduciary agent gets out of such a deal.  There is significant risk and
> overhead for anyone to take this on.  What is the reward?
>
> Overhead
> It’s not just about fronting money and signing contracts.  There is people
> power involved too.  For 2016, I reviewed every contract and agreement that
> came through because my hide was on the line if we screwed up.  It’s not
> hard to miss something in the fine print, or to find estimates and invoices
> that don’t add up.  Furthermore, there were people in our finance
> department who had to do extra work to set up the account, cut checks,
> double-check contracts, communicate with vendors, etc.
>
> Risk
> While we have not yet gone "into the red" on an annual Code4Lib conference
> (knock on wood), it is certainly possible unless there is a degree of
> vigilance on the part of the organizers.  Because you have different
> organizers each year there can be large fluctuations when it comes to
> fundraising/sponsorship effort and experience.  The same goes for
> researching, negotiating, and comparing vendor and venue prices.  We do
> pass on documentation as best we can, but the process is rarely cookie
> cutter.
>
> Reward
> Is the reward simply “thanks” and a pat on the back?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  (For what
> it’s worth, I could see a high-visibility sponsor spot given to this org
> since it's a form of in-kind donated resources.)
>
> Even if Code4Lib were to form a non-profit to strictly handle the annual
> conf, someone’s hide needs to be on the line to make sure there’s proper
> oversight of funds, budgets are properly formed and adhered to, contracts
> are not putting the org at risk, and so on.  To me, that sounds like a
> dedicated employee of the non-profit.
>
> -Shaun
>
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Rogan Hamby <rha...@esilibrary.com rha...@esilibrary.com>> wrote:
>
> There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say that it
> would require some additional organization.  If another body took Code4Lib
> under it's umbrella they would want organizational contacts and some
> arrangements in place with whatever served as the governance of Code4Lib
> (and I use the term governance here very loosely).  And at the other end of
> the spectrum if Code4Lib did something like become a non-profit there are a
> number of IRS requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board,
> bylaws, etc
>
> Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that occur
> to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have to be a
> formal entity spectrum."
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <lib...@emory.edu lib...@emory.edu>> wrote:
>
> Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of
> organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to "sign
> for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't their role
> therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent?
>
> Sorry, but just wondering...
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
> Subject: 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 way, we don't have to think
> about major changes all at once.
>
> I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming
> that there will be a physical one.
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Brian Rogers
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [CO

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Rogan Hamby]

There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say that it
would require some additional organization.  If another body took Code4Lib
under it's umbrella they would want organizational contacts and some
arrangements in place with whatever served as the governance of Code4Lib
(and I use the term governance here very loosely).  And at the other end of
the spectrum if Code4Lib did something like become a non-profit there are a
number of IRS requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board,
bylaws, etc

Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that occur
to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have to be a
formal entity spectrum."

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <lib...@emory.edu> wrote:

> Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of
> organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to "sign
> for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't their role
> therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent?
>
> Sorry, but just wondering...
>
> Laura
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: 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 way, we don't have to think
> about major changes all at once.
>
> I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming
> that there will be a physical one.
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Brian Rogers
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: 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?
>
> 
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
>



-- 
--
Rogan R. Hamby, Data and Project Analyst
Equinox - Open Your Library
ro...@esilibrary.com
1-877-OPEN-ILS | www.esilibrary.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Akerman, Laura]

Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of 
organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to "sign for" 
Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't their role therefore 
have to be, to some degree, permanent?

Sorry, but just wondering...

Laura

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
Salazar, Christina
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: 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 way, we don't have to think about 
major changes all at once.

I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming that 
there will be a physical one.

Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian 
Rogers
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: 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?



This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Cornel Darden Jr.]

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
cor...@casanovainfo.com

sent from mobile
On Jun 7, 2016 2:32 PM, "Coral Sheldon-Hess"  wrote:

> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
>
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> the process started.
>
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
>
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
>
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
>
> - Coral
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> > reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
> > BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> >
> > Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> front
> > of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
> > cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> > organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> thousand
> > dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
> > DOLLARS liability.
> >
> > I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
> >
> > PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but my
> > feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> > conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> >
> >
> > Christina Salazar
> > Systems Librarian
> > John Spoor Broome Library
> > California State University, Channel Islands
> > 805/437-3198
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> > Brian Rogers
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: [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 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Roy Tennant]

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 <
christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:

> 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 suppose OCLC IS willing, but my lil' institution is NOT,
> though we'd be glad to host (but apparently C4L folks aren't really into
> strawberries and former mental hospitals).
>
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Brian Rogers
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:38 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> Never hurts to have a working group for 2018 and beyond.
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Salazar, Christina]

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 suppose OCLC IS willing, but my lil' institution is NOT, though 
we'd be glad to host (but apparently C4L folks aren't really into strawberries 
and former mental hospitals).


Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian 
Rogers
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:38 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Brian Rogers]

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Roy Tennant]

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 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?

[Brian Rogers]

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?

[Salazar, Christina]

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 way, we don't have to think about 
major changes all at once.

I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming that 
there will be a physical one.

Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian 
Rogers
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: 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] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Brian Rogers]

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] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Benjamin Armintor]

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 have their efforts minimized this way.

2. stop acting like the people participating in this on-list discussion
aren't aware of the list archives and/or wiki.

3. resist the temptation toward facile technology and/or publishing
metaphors, especially ones that seem to ignore the vigorous discussion of
economies of centralization & decentralization (including more than one
call for more regional meetings, if I remember correctly) that happened at
C4L16.

4. recognize that there are numerous good-faith reasons people are
interested in national meetings, not least of which is to provide the
context for the TEI-style meetings that Eric mentions.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Johnson <
johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 lessons learned the hard way by the many
> people who have done this work over the years.
>
> The result has been a vibrant community which has had an important
> influence on technology practice in libraries and played a key role in
> establishing the careers of some of the most talented people working in
> this field. I can't see why you would want to erase that in favor of a
> 12-step guide to holding a meetup that you dashed together for an email.
>
> We can debate the merits of holding a national conference, but let's not
> begin that debate by pretending that the regional meetups are so easy to
> hold that they just happen like magic. They don't, and they never have.
>
> - Tom
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Eric Lease Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 of
> > members
> > > who aren't in a Code4Lib region.
> > >
> > > You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived
> > when
> > > I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
> > > along with Hawaii, that would be left out.
> > >
> > > But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
> > > tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
> > > tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in
> the
> > > DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably
> the
> > > one I'd pick right now. I guess?
> > >
> > > So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
> > > region.
> > >
> > > More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
> > > members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an
> exception?
> > > -- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
> > > really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to
> > regional-only.
> > >
> > > Just something else to consider.
> > > - Coral
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Consider searching one or more of the existing Code4Lib
> > mailing list archives for things Pittsburg:
> >
> >   * https://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/
> >   * http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/
> >   * https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CODE4LIB
> >
> > I’d be willing to be you can identify six or seven Code4Lib’ers in the
> > results. You could then suggest a “meet-up”, a get together over lunch,
> or
> > to have them visit you in your space or a near-by public library. Even if
> > there are only three of you, then things will get started, and it will
> grow
> > from there. I promise. —Eric Morgan
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Mike Giarlo]

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 enthusiasm and explore 
new options.

In other words, those of you who are interested in engaging and securing a 
fiduciary agent for annual national conferences should know that you are 
empowered to do so without a "blessing" from anyone! Sometimes it takes a 
concrete proposal to win people over -- and sometimes, people won't be won over 
at all.

--
Michael J. Giarlo
Technical Manager, Hydra-in-a-Box project
Software Architect, Digital Library Systems & Services
Stanford University Libraries
mjgia...@stanford.edu
+1 (206) 402-4473


From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Tom Johnson 
<johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 08:38
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: 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 lessons learned the hard way by the many
people who have done this work over the years.

The result has been a vibrant community which has had an important
influence on technology practice in libraries and played a key role in
establishing the careers of some of the most talented people working in
this field. I can't see why you would want to erase that in favor of a
12-step guide to holding a meetup that you dashed together for an email.

We can debate the merits of holding a national conference, but let's not
begin that debate by pretending that the regional meetups are so easy to
hold that they just happen like magic. They don't, and they never have.

- Tom

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <co...@sheldon-hess.org>
> 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 of
> members
> > who aren't in a Code4Lib region.
> >
> > You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived
> when
> > I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
> > along with Hawaii, that would be left out.
> >
> > But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
> > tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
> > tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in the
> > DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably the
> > one I'd pick right now. I guess?
> >
> > So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
> > region.
> >
> > More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
> > members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an exception?
> > -- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
> > really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to
> regional-only.
> >
> > Just something else to consider.
> > - Coral
>
>
> Interesting. Consider searching one or more of the existing Code4Lib
> mailing list archives for things Pittsburg:
>
>   * https://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/
>   * http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/
>   * https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CODE4LIB
>
> I’d be willing to be you can identify six or seven Code4Lib’ers in the
> results. You could then suggest a “meet-up”, a get together over lunch, or
> to have them visit you in your space or a near-by public library. Even if
> there are only three of you, then things will get started, and it will grow
> from there. I promise. —Eric Morgan
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Tom Johnson]

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 lessons learned the hard way by the many
people who have done this work over the years.

The result has been a vibrant community which has had an important
influence on technology practice in libraries and played a key role in
establishing the careers of some of the most talented people working in
this field. I can't see why you would want to erase that in favor of a
12-step guide to holding a meetup that you dashed together for an email.

We can debate the merits of holding a national conference, but let's not
begin that debate by pretending that the regional meetups are so easy to
hold that they just happen like magic. They don't, and they never have.

- Tom

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> 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 of
> members
> > who aren't in a Code4Lib region.
> >
> > You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived
> when
> > I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
> > along with Hawaii, that would be left out.
> >
> > But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
> > tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
> > tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in the
> > DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably the
> > one I'd pick right now. I guess?
> >
> > So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
> > region.
> >
> > More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
> > members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an exception?
> > -- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
> > really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to
> regional-only.
> >
> > Just something else to consider.
> > - Coral
>
>
> Interesting. Consider searching one or more of the existing Code4Lib
> mailing list archives for things Pittsburg:
>
>   * https://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/
>   * http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/
>   * https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CODE4LIB
>
> I’d be willing to be you can identify six or seven Code4Lib’ers in the
> results. You could then suggest a “meet-up”, a get together over lunch, or
> to have them visit you in your space or a near-by public library. Even if
> there are only three of you, then things will get started, and it will grow
> from there. I promise. —Eric Morgan
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Eric Lease Morgan]

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 of members
> who aren't in a Code4Lib region.
> 
> You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived when
> I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
> along with Hawaii, that would be left out.
> 
> But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
> tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
> tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in the
> DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably the
> one I'd pick right now. I guess?
> 
> So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
> region.
> 
> More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
> members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an exception?
> -- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
> really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to regional-only.
> 
> Just something else to consider.
> - Coral


Interesting. Consider searching one or more of the existing Code4Lib mailing 
list archives for things Pittsburg:

  * https://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/
  * http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/
  * https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CODE4LIB

I’d be willing to be you can identify six or seven Code4Lib’ers in the results. 
You could then suggest a “meet-up”, a get together over lunch, or to have them 
visit you in your space or a near-by public library. Even if there are only 
three of you, then things will get started, and it will grow from there. I 
promise. —Eric Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

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 of members
who aren't in a Code4Lib region.

You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived when
I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
along with Hawaii, that would be left out.

But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in the
DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably the
one I'd pick right now. I guess?

So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
region.

More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an exception?
-- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to regional-only.

Just something else to consider.
- Coral

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Mark A. Matienzo 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
>
> >
> > Hosting a local/regional meeting is not difficult and relatively
> > inexpensive.
>
>
> While I find the intent to make code4lib more "distributed" through
> localized meetings, I find this statement incredibly belittling and
> disingenuous. There are a number folks in the community who have organized
> local, regional, national and international conferences. Some of the things
> that you claim are important, and perhaps easy (space, "strong wifi", etc.)
> can be quite difficult to obtain, even for small groups.
>
> Let’s forgo identifying a fiduciary for a while. What will they facilitate?
> > The funding of a large meeting space in a “fancy” hotel? Is that really
> > necessary when the same communication & sharing can be done on a smaller,
> > lesser expensive, and more intimate scale? DIY.
>
>
> Any of this organizing activity is a form of labor, and it's no wonder why
> people get exhausted and sometimes burnt out by organizing conferences. I'm
> all for DIY, but DIY is still labor and requires time, capital, and
> emotional energy.
>
> So yes, let's provide more opportunities for people to get together at a
> local level, but let's be honest about what it takes.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark A. Matienzo  | http://anarchivi.st/
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Mark A. Matienzo]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

>
> Hosting a local/regional meeting is not difficult and relatively
> inexpensive.


While I find the intent to make code4lib more "distributed" through
localized meetings, I find this statement incredibly belittling and
disingenuous. There are a number folks in the community who have organized
local, regional, national and international conferences. Some of the things
that you claim are important, and perhaps easy (space, "strong wifi", etc.)
can be quite difficult to obtain, even for small groups.

Let’s forgo identifying a fiduciary for a while. What will they facilitate?
> The funding of a large meeting space in a “fancy” hotel? Is that really
> necessary when the same communication & sharing can be done on a smaller,
> lesser expensive, and more intimate scale? DIY.


Any of this organizing activity is a form of labor, and it's no wonder why
people get exhausted and sometimes burnt out by organizing conferences. I'm
all for DIY, but DIY is still labor and requires time, capital, and
emotional energy.

So yes, let's provide more opportunities for people to get together at a
local level, but let's be honest about what it takes.

Mark

--
Mark A. Matienzo  | http://anarchivi.st/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Shaun D. Ellis]

I believe the distillation of Code4Lib’s value into enabling “communication and 
sharing” is accurate, but I think this should be further focused. Showcasing 
what we’ve done and how we’ve done it is wonderful, but only goes so far since 
many of our open source solutions still require a loads of effort to implement. 
 A number of institutions (Stanford certainly stands out in my mind) have made 
great strides towards open source collaboration in libraries, but for 
understandable reasons they are limited in size and focus, and there should be 
more contributors than there currently are to most open source library 
projects.  Furthermore, the use cases of smaller archives and libraries often 
don’t get addressed.*

I went to DrupalCon last month, and I learned that Drupal really needs people 
to step up and contribute to Drupal Core, but just getting out of the starting 
gate requires training, mentoring, and dedication.  It took me all day at the 
Drupal Core Sprint “hackfest" to simply move a single issue forward with a few 
comments and screenshots.  I felt good about that until I realized that there’s 
no commitment from my institution to set aside time to contribute back to Core. 
 The perception of open source as completely free software requiring no 
reciprocation on the part of institutions needs to change.

As others have mentioned, I agree that this year could be an opportunity to 
experiment with the annual conference format.  I wonder what could be 
accomplished by organizing a hands-on virtual “hackfest/creative coding” event, 
where institutions commit “attendees" to working on open source software 
(mentorship, coding, design, UI, UX, documentation, etc) for that week?  This 
could be completely virtual, or it could be semi-virtual by coordinating 
regional/local gatherings. It would involve just as much effort, logistics, and 
infrastructure to organize, so I don’t see the committee structure going away, 
but it wouldn’t require the burden of contracts and money necessary to organize 
a "mega event" in physical space.

My two cents,
Shaun Ellis

* There are some efforts to address this with projects like "Hydra-in-a-Box” 
(love those weekly sprint demos!), but you get my drift.


On Jun 8, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Matt Sherman 
> wrote:

Eric,

Thanks for tossing these ideas out there.  A number of these ideas had
not occurred to me, even though I've been wanting to see more local
events.  What you and Kyle are saying is resounding far more than I
would have initially thought.  I think in general one of the great
things with Code4Lib has been more of a focus on hashing out projects
and ideas, helping one another learn new things, consider new ideas
and approaches, and build relationships that way. Which having more
local meet ups would help with.  Part of me hates to see the national
conference go away as I love getting a chance to meet and interact
with so many folks from all over, but I think you have a great point
on needing to put some greater focus back into regional events and the
collaborative aspects that build this community in the first place.

Matt Sherman

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Eric Hellman 
> wrote:
Since we're brainstorming...

In addition to regional meetings, how about having some smaller, national or 
even international thematic Code4Lib meetings. For example, I see an aching 
need for a "Code4Lib:Privacy".


Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar

On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kyle Banerjee  wrote:

My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about sharing 
ideas to solve practical problems… Nowadays, the conference (which has become 
like other library conferences) has become an end in itself…


In the spirit of open source software and open access publishing, I suggest we 
earnestly try to practice DIY — do it yourself -- before other types of 
formalization be put into place.

I was struck by Kyle’s statement, “the conference has become an end in itself”, 
and the more I think about it, the more I think this has become true. The 
problem to solve is not identifying a fiduciary for the annual conference. The 
problems to solve surround communication and sharing. A (large) annual 
conference is not the answer to these problems, but rather it is one possible 
answer.

Unless somebody steps up to the plate, then I suggest we forego the annual 
meeting and try a more DIY approach for a limited period of time, say two or 
three years. More specifically, I suggest more time & earnest effort be spent 
on local or regional meetings. Hosting a local/regional meeting is not 
difficult and relatively inexpensive. Here’s how:

1) Identify one or two 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Kari R Smith]

And I'll throw into the mix that there are several one and two day meetings 
that deal with sectors of technologies and archives/libraries.  An idea that's 
been talked about in other groups is about having a week when several of these 
meet so that attendees might cross-over to other relevant meetings and topics 
and thus not have to travel to several one-day meetings but instead take 
advantage of a single location.  

Just another thought --

Kari R. Smith
Digital Archivist, Institute Archives and Special Collections
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries

617.253.5690   smithkr at mit.edu   http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Eric 
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 2:51 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

Since we're brainstorming...

In addition to regional meetings, how about having some smaller, national or 
even international thematic Code4Lib meetings. For example, I see an aching 
need for a "Code4Lib:Privacy".


Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kyle Banerjee <kyle.baner...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about sharing 
>> ideas to solve practical problems… Nowadays, the conference (which has 
>> become like other library conferences) has become an end in itself…
> 
> 
> In the spirit of open source software and open access publishing, I suggest 
> we earnestly try to practice DIY — do it yourself -- before other types of 
> formalization be put into place.
> 
> I was struck by Kyle’s statement, “the conference has become an end in 
> itself”, and the more I think about it, the more I think this has become 
> true. The problem to solve is not identifying a fiduciary for the annual 
> conference. The problems to solve surround communication and sharing. A 
> (large) annual conference is not the answer to these problems, but rather it 
> is one possible answer.
> 
> Unless somebody steps up to the plate, then I suggest we forego the annual 
> meeting and try a more DIY approach for a limited period of time, say two or 
> three years. More specifically, I suggest more time & earnest effort be spent 
> on local or regional meetings. Hosting a local/regional meeting is not 
> difficult and relatively inexpensive. Here’s how:
> 
>  1) Identify one or two regional leaders - These are people who will 
> initialize and coordinate events. They find & recruit other people to 
> participate. Sure, they require “spare cycles", but they do not have to keep 
> this responsibility past a single event.
> 
>  2) Create/maintain a Web presence - This is a Web page and/or a mailing 
> list. These tools will be communication conduits. Keep the Web page 
> up-to-date on the status of the event. Refer to it in almost every email 
> message. Use it to record what will happen as well as what did happen. The 
> mailing list can start out as someone’s address book, but it can grow to an 
> mail alias on a Linux machine or even a Google Group. The Web page can live 
> in the Code4Lib wiki.
> 
>  3) Communicate - Kind of like voting in Chicago, “Talk early. Talk often.” 
> This is essential, and can hardly be done too much. People delete email. 
> People don’t plan ahead. People think they are not available, then at the 
> last minute they are. The reverse happens too. Send communications about your 
> event often, very often. Use email to build a local/regional community. Share 
> with them your intention as early as Step #1. Keep people informed.
> 
>  4) Identify a venue — Find a place to have the event. Colleges, 
> universities, and municipal libraries are good choices. Ideally they should 
> be associated with the output of Step #1. The meeting space has to 
> accommodate fifty people (more or less), but bigger is not necessarily 
> better. The space can be an auditorium, a meeting room, many meeting rooms, 
> or any combination. The space requires excellent network connectivity. A 
> meeting space sans strong wi-fi is detrimental.
> 
>  5) Identify a time - The meeting itself needs to be at least one afternoon 
> long. A day is good. More than two full days becomes a bit difficult. 
> Starting at times like noon allows people to have traveling time, or for 
> folks who arrived the night before time to get oriented. Starting at nine and 
> ending at 5 makes for a nice full day. Ending the meeting around noon makes 
> it easy for people to travel back home. Host the ev

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Matt Sherman]

Eric,

Thanks for tossing these ideas out there.  A number of these ideas had
not occurred to me, even though I've been wanting to see more local
events.  What you and Kyle are saying is resounding far more than I
would have initially thought.  I think in general one of the great
things with Code4Lib has been more of a focus on hashing out projects
and ideas, helping one another learn new things, consider new ideas
and approaches, and build relationships that way. Which having more
local meet ups would help with.  Part of me hates to see the national
conference go away as I love getting a chance to meet and interact
with so many folks from all over, but I think you have a great point
on needing to put some greater focus back into regional events and the
collaborative aspects that build this community in the first place.

Matt Sherman

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Eric Hellman  wrote:
> Since we're brainstorming...
>
> In addition to regional meetings, how about having some smaller, national or 
> even international thematic Code4Lib meetings. For example, I see an aching 
> need for a "Code4Lib:Privacy".
>
>
> Eric Hellman
> President, Free Ebook Foundation
> Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
> https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
> twitter: @gluejar
>
>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kyle Banerjee  wrote:
>>
>>> My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about 
>>> sharing ideas to solve practical problems… Nowadays, the conference (which 
>>> has become like other library conferences) has become an end in itself…
>>
>>
>> In the spirit of open source software and open access publishing, I suggest 
>> we earnestly try to practice DIY — do it yourself -- before other types of 
>> formalization be put into place.
>>
>> I was struck by Kyle’s statement, “the conference has become an end in 
>> itself”, and the more I think about it, the more I think this has become 
>> true. The problem to solve is not identifying a fiduciary for the annual 
>> conference. The problems to solve surround communication and sharing. A 
>> (large) annual conference is not the answer to these problems, but rather it 
>> is one possible answer.
>>
>> Unless somebody steps up to the plate, then I suggest we forego the annual 
>> meeting and try a more DIY approach for a limited period of time, say two or 
>> three years. More specifically, I suggest more time & earnest effort be 
>> spent on local or regional meetings. Hosting a local/regional meeting is not 
>> difficult and relatively inexpensive. Here’s how:
>>
>>  1) Identify one or two regional leaders - These are people who will 
>> initialize and coordinate events. They find & recruit other people to 
>> participate. Sure, they require “spare cycles", but they do not have to keep 
>> this responsibility past a single event.
>>
>>  2) Create/maintain a Web presence - This is a Web page and/or a mailing 
>> list. These tools will be communication conduits. Keep the Web page 
>> up-to-date on the status of the event. Refer to it in almost every email 
>> message. Use it to record what will happen as well as what did happen. The 
>> mailing list can start out as someone’s address book, but it can grow to an 
>> mail alias on a Linux machine or even a Google Group. The Web page can live 
>> in the Code4Lib wiki.
>>
>>  3) Communicate - Kind of like voting in Chicago, “Talk early. Talk often.” 
>> This is essential, and can hardly be done too much. People delete email. 
>> People don’t plan ahead. People think they are not available, then at the 
>> last minute they are. The reverse happens too. Send communications about 
>> your event often, very often. Use email to build a local/regional community. 
>> Share with them your intention as early as Step #1. Keep people informed.
>>
>>  4) Identify a venue — Find a place to have the event. Colleges, 
>> universities, and municipal libraries are good choices. Ideally they should 
>> be associated with the output of Step #1. The meeting space has to 
>> accommodate fifty people (more or less), but bigger is not necessarily 
>> better. The space can be an auditorium, a meeting room, many meeting rooms, 
>> or any combination. The space requires excellent network connectivity. A 
>> meeting space sans strong wi-fi is detrimental.
>>
>>  5) Identify a time - The meeting itself needs to be at least one afternoon 
>> long. A day is good. More than two full days becomes a bit difficult. 
>> Starting at times like noon allows people to have traveling time, or for 
>> folks who arrived the night before time to get oriented. Starting at nine 
>> and ending at 5 makes for a nice full day. Ending the meeting around noon 
>> makes it easy for people to travel back home. Host the event on a weekday 
>> and maybe ending on a Saturday. This is professional work, and it may be fun 
>> & interesting, but it 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Eric Hellman]

Since we're brainstorming...

In addition to regional meetings, how about having some smaller, national or 
even international thematic Code4Lib meetings. For example, I see an aching 
need for a "Code4Lib:Privacy".


Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
> 
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kyle Banerjee  wrote:
> 
>> My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about sharing 
>> ideas to solve practical problems… Nowadays, the conference (which has 
>> become like other library conferences) has become an end in itself…
> 
> 
> In the spirit of open source software and open access publishing, I suggest 
> we earnestly try to practice DIY — do it yourself -- before other types of 
> formalization be put into place.
> 
> I was struck by Kyle’s statement, “the conference has become an end in 
> itself”, and the more I think about it, the more I think this has become 
> true. The problem to solve is not identifying a fiduciary for the annual 
> conference. The problems to solve surround communication and sharing. A 
> (large) annual conference is not the answer to these problems, but rather it 
> is one possible answer.
> 
> Unless somebody steps up to the plate, then I suggest we forego the annual 
> meeting and try a more DIY approach for a limited period of time, say two or 
> three years. More specifically, I suggest more time & earnest effort be spent 
> on local or regional meetings. Hosting a local/regional meeting is not 
> difficult and relatively inexpensive. Here’s how:
> 
>  1) Identify one or two regional leaders - These are people who will 
> initialize and coordinate events. They find & recruit other people to 
> participate. Sure, they require “spare cycles", but they do not have to keep 
> this responsibility past a single event.
> 
>  2) Create/maintain a Web presence - This is a Web page and/or a mailing 
> list. These tools will be communication conduits. Keep the Web page 
> up-to-date on the status of the event. Refer to it in almost every email 
> message. Use it to record what will happen as well as what did happen. The 
> mailing list can start out as someone’s address book, but it can grow to an 
> mail alias on a Linux machine or even a Google Group. The Web page can live 
> in the Code4Lib wiki.
> 
>  3) Communicate - Kind of like voting in Chicago, “Talk early. Talk often.” 
> This is essential, and can hardly be done too much. People delete email. 
> People don’t plan ahead. People think they are not available, then at the 
> last minute they are. The reverse happens too. Send communications about your 
> event often, very often. Use email to build a local/regional community. Share 
> with them your intention as early as Step #1. Keep people informed.
> 
>  4) Identify a venue — Find a place to have the event. Colleges, 
> universities, and municipal libraries are good choices. Ideally they should 
> be associated with the output of Step #1. The meeting space has to 
> accommodate fifty people (more or less), but bigger is not necessarily 
> better. The space can be an auditorium, a meeting room, many meeting rooms, 
> or any combination. The space requires excellent network connectivity. A 
> meeting space sans strong wi-fi is detrimental.
> 
>  5) Identify a time - The meeting itself needs to be at least one afternoon 
> long. A day is good. More than two full days becomes a bit difficult. 
> Starting at times like noon allows people to have traveling time, or for 
> folks who arrived the night before time to get oriented. Starting at nine and 
> ending at 5 makes for a nice full day. Ending the meeting around noon makes 
> it easy for people to travel back home. Host the event on a weekday and maybe 
> ending on a Saturday. This is professional work, and it may be fun & 
> interesting, but it should not require vacation leave.†
> 
>  6) Outline an agenda - The agenda embodies "la raison d’être”. The agenda is 
> a tool for facilitating the communication and sharing. Put it on the Web 
> page. Allow others to fill it in. Outline show & tell sessions of various 
> lengths. Recruit people who you know are doing interesting things. Be 
> prepared to show one or two things from the local institution. Do show & tell 
> on things other than computers in libraries. Give tours of local cool stuff, 
> like an archive, special collection, museum, maker space, or even churches. 
> These tours are less about the showing of the stuff as they are about 
> enabling communication of the attendees. Do you really think people are not 
> going to talk work while gazing at a painting? Identify concrete (library) 
> problems to solve, and these form the basis of hack sessions. Do the 
> “unconference” thing. Take hints from THATCamps. Do roundtable discussions 
> and have reporting back 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kyle Banerjee  wrote:

> My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about sharing 
> ideas to solve practical problems… Nowadays, the conference (which has become 
> like other library conferences) has become an end in itself…


In the spirit of open source software and open access publishing, I suggest we 
earnestly try to practice DIY — do it yourself -- before other types of 
formalization be put into place.

I was struck by Kyle’s statement, “the conference has become an end in itself”, 
and the more I think about it, the more I think this has become true. The 
problem to solve is not identifying a fiduciary for the annual conference. The 
problems to solve surround communication and sharing. A (large) annual 
conference is not the answer to these problems, but rather it is one possible 
answer.

Unless somebody steps up to the plate, then I suggest we forego the annual 
meeting and try a more DIY approach for a limited period of time, say two or 
three years. More specifically, I suggest more time & earnest effort be spent 
on local or regional meetings. Hosting a local/regional meeting is not 
difficult and relatively inexpensive. Here’s how:

  1) Identify one or two regional leaders - These are people who will 
initialize and coordinate events. They find & recruit other people to 
participate. Sure, they require “spare cycles", but they do not have to keep 
this responsibility past a single event.

  2) Create/maintain a Web presence - This is a Web page and/or a mailing list. 
These tools will be communication conduits. Keep the Web page up-to-date on the 
status of the event. Refer to it in almost every email message. Use it to 
record what will happen as well as what did happen. The mailing list can start 
out as someone’s address book, but it can grow to an mail alias on a Linux 
machine or even a Google Group. The Web page can live in the Code4Lib wiki.

  3) Communicate - Kind of like voting in Chicago, “Talk early. Talk often.” 
This is essential, and can hardly be done too much. People delete email. People 
don’t plan ahead. People think they are not available, then at the last minute 
they are. The reverse happens too. Send communications about your event often, 
very often. Use email to build a local/regional community. Share with them your 
intention as early as Step #1. Keep people informed. 

  4) Identify a venue — Find a place to have the event. Colleges, universities, 
and municipal libraries are good choices. Ideally they should be associated 
with the output of Step #1. The meeting space has to accommodate fifty people 
(more or less), but bigger is not necessarily better. The space can be an 
auditorium, a meeting room, many meeting rooms, or any combination. The space 
requires excellent network connectivity. A meeting space sans strong wi-fi is 
detrimental.

  5) Identify a time - The meeting itself needs to be at least one afternoon 
long. A day is good. More than two full days becomes a bit difficult. Starting 
at times like noon allows people to have traveling time, or for folks who 
arrived the night before time to get oriented. Starting at nine and ending at 5 
makes for a nice full day. Ending the meeting around noon makes it easy for 
people to travel back home. Host the event on a weekday and maybe ending on a 
Saturday. This is professional work, and it may be fun & interesting, but it 
should not require vacation leave.† 

  6) Outline an agenda - The agenda embodies "la raison d’être”. The agenda is 
a tool for facilitating the communication and sharing. Put it on the Web page. 
Allow others to fill it in. Outline show & tell sessions of various lengths. 
Recruit people who you know are doing interesting things. Be prepared to show 
one or two things from the local institution. Do show & tell on things other 
than computers in libraries. Give tours of local cool stuff, like an archive, 
special collection, museum, maker space, or even churches. These tours are less 
about the showing of the stuff as they are about enabling communication of the 
attendees. Do you really think people are not going to talk work while gazing 
at a painting? Identify concrete (library) problems to solve, and these form 
the basis of hack sessions. Do the “unconference” thing. Take hints from 
THATCamps. Do roundtable discussions and have reporting back sessions. Bring in 
people outside computing but inside the hosting community, and learning by 
everybody will take place.

  7) Identify how to eat - Going to one more more restaurants/bars for lunch or 
in the evening is a very good thing. When it comes to lunch, people can go out 
on their own, or the hosting institution may want to sponsor. Cookies and 
snacks during the day are good things, but not necessary. Shy away from 
caterers. They are expensive. Take the same money, go to the grocery store, and 
buy things to eat. Make reservations in restaurants for 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Salazar, Christina <
christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:

> Having gone to C4L in 2007 in Athens, when it was I think 150 people (ha!
> Let's be honest: 145 men and 5 women) and then again in 2015 in Portland
> and 2014 in Raleigh, the Code 4 Lib that once was is no more. Long live
> Code4Lib.
>
> If we continue to want a large conference we need a better fiduciary
> agent. Take the fact that so few folks are willing to put bids to host as a
> sign that something different is happening here from what used to be 10
> plus years ago. (Wait, damn! Am I THAT old???)
>
> I'm not saying that all the changes that have happened over time have been
> bad (see my observation of gender balance above) but I think the large
> annual conference specifically needs to be thought through.
>
> How do we approach thinking it through? I have no idea but as others have
> said, the conversation is long overdue. (I wonder when Ruth says "Clearly
> the community wants to go" WHAT "the community" wants to go TO? Would we
> even be able to come to an agreement on that?)
>

This.

My recollection is that in the bad 'ol days, c4l was much more about
sharing ideas to solve practical problems. The conference was like that too
-- people sometimes delivered lightning talks based on ideas that popped
into their heads by a presentation that had just been given. There was a
lot more nitty gritty tech in the offline fun. Getting involved was simply
a matter of showing up. The conference was a chance to get together with
people you'd been working with remotely.

Nowadays, the conference (which has become like other library conferences)
has become an end in itself. It seems to take more energy than everything
else combined and the lion's share of the messages on this list are
announcements or administrative in nature. Communication has shifted from a
hive mind dynamic where everyone contributes towards one where a few push
information out to the many -- this presents barriers to participation and
contributes to people feeling like outsiders.

Both c4l and the conference have changed a great deal over the years, and
whatever path we continue on deserves some discussion. The worst case
scenario is that we don't reach an agreement on how to proceed and things
break into smaller pieces. That wouldn't be the so bad because there is
plenty of great action to be had in smaller and regional venues.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Morgan McKeehan]

I’ve been wondering if Code4Lib could consider applying for membership +
fiscal sponsorship through Fractured Atlas, which is a non-profit that
provides fiscal sponsorship for non-commercial arts (/cultural sector?)
organizations that do not have 501 c 3 status. Here’s their page about
fiscal sponsorship:

https://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/fiscal/

Fractured Atlas primarily supports arts organizations, but considering the
nature of C4L’s mission, I think there’s a strong case to be made for C4L
as not entirely out of scope. At least it seems worth investigating, and if
Fractured Atlas can’t sponsor C4L they might have good suggestions for
other options to consider.

c4L would have to apply for membership: there is a $20/month membership fee
for organizations.  With fiscal sponsorship, there is a 7% admin fee on all
donations. On the plus side, it would be possible to request donations from
a broader range of sponsors.

Additionally, a stable fiscal sponsor that is outside of the
Library/Information Science field seems like a healthy way for C4L to
maintain independence.

- Morgan

*more links:*

https://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/fiscal/apply_instructions

https://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/about

*more info, from the fiscal sponsorship page:*

What is required for fiscal sponsorship?

   1. You must be a Professional or Organizational member of Fractured
   Atlas.
   2. You must submit the online application.
   3. Your project must be artistic.
   4. Your project must have some public benefit and be non-commercial in
   nature.

Are there any fees?

   - There is a base 7% administrative fee on all donations, with no
   additional fees for processing credit cards. As you raise over the lifetime
   of your project, the fee is reduced. These lower fees apply to grants and
   donations by check, but not to donations by credit card:

$0-$150K
7% fee on checks and grants
$150K-$500K
6% fee on checks and grants
$500K-$1M
5% fee on checks and grants
$1M+
4% fee on checks and grants

How and when will you receive the money raised for your project?

   - All donations are held for seven days. After seven days, the project
   may request the funds be sent via electronic fund transfer into their bank
   account. We process fund releases every business day.


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Chris Moschini  wrote:

> Having been through something like this in the past that went very badly, a
> small bit of advice:
>
> If the impetus for forming a company is protection from liability for the
> Annual Conference, form it solely for that purpose.
>
> Leaving it open-ended will bring in everyone's ideas. Many of them will
> conflict. That will breed sharp disagreements. With a company in the wings
> you have money on the line increasing the negative impacts available here.
>
> Some companies have a very clear singular charter to prevent this and I
> recommend constraining this one likewise, so everyone/anyone involved is
> aware of and expecting just that one purpose. That will give it clear
> direction and improve its chance at success.
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Chris Moschini]

Having been through something like this in the past that went very badly, a
small bit of advice:

If the impetus for forming a company is protection from liability for the
Annual Conference, form it solely for that purpose.

Leaving it open-ended will bring in everyone's ideas. Many of them will
conflict. That will breed sharp disagreements. With a company in the wings
you have money on the line increasing the negative impacts available here.

Some companies have a very clear singular charter to prevent this and I
recommend constraining this one likewise, so everyone/anyone involved is
aware of and expecting just that one purpose. That will give it clear
direction and improve its chance at success.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Salazar, Christina]

I want to boost Terry's thread as well.

Having gone to C4L in 2007 in Athens, when it was I think 150 people (ha! Let's 
be honest: 145 men and 5 women) and then again in 2015 in Portland and 2014 in 
Raleigh, the Code 4 Lib that once was is no more. Long live Code4Lib.

If we continue to want a large conference we need a better fiduciary agent. 
Take the fact that so few folks are willing to put bids to host as a sign that 
something different is happening here from what used to be 10 plus years ago. 
(Wait, damn! Am I THAT old???)

I'm not saying that all the changes that have happened over time have been bad 
(see my observation of gender balance above) but I think the large annual 
conference specifically needs to be thought through.

How do we approach thinking it through? I have no idea but as others have said, 
the conversation is long overdue. (I wonder when Ruth says "Clearly the 
community wants to go" WHAT "the community" wants to go TO? Would we even be 
able to come to an agreement on that?)

Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198





-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Terry 
Reese
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:37 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

>> Fiscal agents are ultimately responsible for the contracts they are 
>> going to be signing. In the case of this conference, that is easily well 
>> over $200K.

I think that this is the first pertinent question for the community to decide.  
The conference wasn't always this big, this extravagant, or this expensive.  
And the costs of running a conference that hosts say 150-200 people, is order 
of magnitude higher than our current size of 450-500.  It brings with it 
tradeoffs, and one of them has been the difficulty and exceptional risk 
organizations take on to run this event.  If as a community, there is an 
ongoing desire to have an annual mega conference, then it probably is 
definitely time to start looking for an organization that can provide the type 
of continuity needed to make the event easier to run and financially easier to 
manage.  And if we can't do that as a community, it's probably time to rethink 
our annual conference and scope it into an event that's more sustainable and 
attractive to a volunteer run community.

--tr

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Edward M. Corrado]

Thanks for the information Peter (and best of luck at Index Data).

Edward

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Peter Murray  wrote:

> I did look at this while I was at LYRASIS a few years ago.  (I'm now at
> Cherry Hill -- soon to be at Index Data -- http://dltj.org/p27236 ).  At
> the time they had an "association management" division that did this sort
> of thing.  They disbanded that division before I left, but they are under
> new executive leadership now, so they might be interested in doing it again.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Edward M. Corrado 
> wrote:
> >
> > At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I
> > don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the
> > community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be
> > interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be
> > somethign to look into.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a
> >> financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership
> >> committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the
> >> financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.
> >>
> >> I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get
> more
> >> info on how the arrangement works.
> >>
> >> -Esmé
> >>
> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able
> to
> >>> enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
>  organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host
> >> for
>  the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
>  scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An
> >> existing
>  library non-profit might be able to do this without that much
> overhead.
> 
>  For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
>  arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the
> >> arrangement
>  for another year, including the MOU:
> 
>  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
> 
>  In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L
> >> more
>  organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a
> >> non-profit
>  organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
>  lighter-weight option.
> 
>  -Esmé
> 
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> co...@sheldon-hess.org
> >>>
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
>  Christina!
> >
> > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> > volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind
> >> the
> > investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
>  takes
> > this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to
> >> get
> > the process started.
> >
> > And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> > proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think
> >> my
> > volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> > gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> > whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> > identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization
> (my
>  gut
> > answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> > become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely)
> >> should
> > Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional
> >> stuff?
> > Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> > options are, right now.
> >
> > One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with
> a
>  flat
> > organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy,"
> is
> > that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers,
> or
>  even
> > long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There
> is
> > value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know
> >> how
>  to
> > go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
>  Having
> > some kind of formal structure would help.
> >
> > So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Ruth Tillman]

I also am unsure, Eric, how you imagine we could have a "smaller" annual
meeting. Clearly the community wants to go. It is large. Tickets sell out
quickly. I couldn't have gotten a ticket for this year's even if I had not
been in the process of moving to Notre Dame and thus between funding,
because I was in meetings during the ticket sales and hadn't expected them
to go that fast. Who would get to decide who gets to go to this small,
not-big-deal Code4Lib? Longtime insiders like you? People who've only been
around a few years and thus have more to gain like me? Students? People
lucky enough not to be in meetings when tickets go on sale?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Ruth Tillman <rtill...@nd.edu> wrote:

> ++ to Tom on this as I see a tremendous emotional and bureaucratic expense
> every year for the organizing committee (or at least the last 2, where I've
> paid attention to it). It is certainly distributed in different locales who
> are hosting, but it already exists. I don't think we can deny that it's
> there just because we don't happen to be involved in it this year.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Johnson <
> johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> expense" to be?
>>
>> And especially, how it doesn't just reflect the existing costs of running
>> the conferences? Do we really believe there is overhead associated with
>> establishing a fiscal organization once, rather than doing it on the fly
>> each year?
>>
>> - Tom
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> > expense" to be?
>> >
>> > -Mike
>> >
>> > ________
>> > From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric
>> > Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
>> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>> >
>> > > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
>> > > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
>> >
>> >
>> > -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
>> > bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
>> >
>> > —
>> > ELM
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ruth Kitchin Tillman
>
> Digital Collections Librarian
>
> Hesburgh Libraries
>
> 113 Hesburgh Library
>
> o: 574-631-6067
>
> e: rtill...@nd.edu
>
>


-- 

Ruth Kitchin Tillman

Digital Collections Librarian

Hesburgh Libraries

113 Hesburgh Library

o: 574-631-6067

e: rtill...@nd.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Shirley Lincicum]

+1 Terry

Shirley

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Terry Reese  wrote:

> >> Fiscal agents are ultimately responsible for the contracts they are
> >> going to be signing. In the case of this conference, that is easily
> well over $200K.
>
> I think that this is the first pertinent question for the community to
> decide.  The conference wasn't always this big, this extravagant, or this
> expensive.  And the costs of running a conference that hosts say 150-200
> people, is order of magnitude higher than our current size of 450-500.  It
> brings with it tradeoffs, and one of them has been the difficulty and
> exceptional risk organizations take on to run this event.  If as a
> community, there is an ongoing desire to have an annual mega conference,
> then it probably is definitely time to start looking for an organization
> that can provide the type of continuity needed to make the event easier to
> run and financially easier to manage.  And if we can't do that as a
> community, it's probably time to rethink our annual conference and scope it
> into an event that's more sustainable and attractive to a volunteer run
> community.
>
> --tr
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Peter Murray]

I did look at this while I was at LYRASIS a few years ago.  (I'm now at Cherry 
Hill -- soon to be at Index Data -- http://dltj.org/p27236 ).  At the time they 
had an "association management" division that did this sort of thing.  They 
disbanded that division before I left, but they are under new executive 
leadership now, so they might be interested in doing it again.



Peter

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Edward M. Corrado  wrote:
> 
> At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I
> don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the
> community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be
> interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be
> somethign to look into.
> 
> Edward
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles  wrote:
> 
>> I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a
>> financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership
>> committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the
>> financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.
>> 
>> I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more
>> info on how the arrangement works.
>> 
>> -Esmé
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
>>> enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
 organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host
>> for
 the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
 scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An
>> existing
 library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
 
 For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
 arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the
>> arrangement
 for another year, including the MOU:
 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
 
 In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L
>> more
 organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a
>> non-profit
 organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
 lighter-weight option.
 
 -Esmé
 
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess >> 
 wrote:
> 
> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
 Christina!
> 
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind
>> the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
 takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to
>> get
> the process started.
> 
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think
>> my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
 gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely)
>> should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional
>> stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
> 
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a
 flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
 even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know
>> how
 to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
 Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
> 
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> 
> - Coral
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
> 
>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES
>> OF
>> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Nate Hill]

Fwiw over here at the Metropolitan New York Library Council we might be
able to help from an organizational perspective. I'd certainly be open to
the idea. Not sure exactly what it means though.

Nate

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:

> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
>
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> the process started.
>
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
>
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
>
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
>
> - Coral
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu > wrote:
>
> > It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> > reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
> > BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> >
> > Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> front
> > of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
> > cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> > organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> thousand
> > dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
> > DOLLARS liability.
> >
> > I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
> >
> > PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but my
> > feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> > conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> >
> >
> > Christina Salazar
> > Systems Librarian
> > John Spoor Broome Library
> > California State University, Channel Islands
> > 805/437-3198
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU ]
> On Behalf Of
> > Brian Rogers
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU 
> > Subject: [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 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Terry Reese]

>> Fiscal agents are ultimately responsible for the contracts they are 
>> going to be signing. In the case of this conference, that is easily well 
>> over $200K.

I think that this is the first pertinent question for the community to decide.  
The conference wasn't always this big, this extravagant, or this expensive.  
And the costs of running a conference that hosts say 150-200 people, is order 
of magnitude higher than our current size of 450-500.  It brings with it 
tradeoffs, and one of them has been the difficulty and exceptional risk 
organizations take on to run this event.  If as a community, there is an 
ongoing desire to have an annual mega conference, then it probably is 
definitely time to start looking for an organization that can provide the type 
of continuity needed to make the event easier to run and financially easier to 
manage.  And if we can't do that as a community, it's probably time to rethink 
our annual conference and scope it into an event that's more sustainable and 
attractive to a volunteer run community.

--tr

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Ruth Tillman]

++ to Tom on this as I see a tremendous emotional and bureaucratic expense
every year for the organizing committee (or at least the last 2, where I've
paid attention to it). It is certainly distributed in different locales who
are hosting, but it already exists. I don't think we can deny that it's
there just because we don't happen to be involved in it this year.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Johnson <johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> And especially, how it doesn't just reflect the existing costs of running
> the conferences? Do we really believe there is overhead associated with
> establishing a fiscal organization once, rather than doing it on the fly
> each year?
>
> - Tom
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> > expense" to be?
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > 
> > From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric
> > Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
> >
> > > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> > > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
> >
> >
> > -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
> > bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
> >
> > —
> > ELM
> >
>



-- 

Ruth Kitchin Tillman

Digital Collections Librarian

Hesburgh Libraries

113 Hesburgh Library

o: 574-631-6067

e: rtill...@nd.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Salazar, Christina]

In an effort to um... help this conversation, I think it's useful to think 
about the fiduciary agent issue as being separate from formalizing Code4Lib as 
a whole.

Please, please, please don't let our reluctance to be organized kill the idea 
that we're proposing of reintroducing some sort of something that would allow 
Code4Lib to assume our own financial liability.

At this stage of the game we're literally asking for random organizations to be 
willing to cover us for hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability with 
nothing to secure against and I’m sorry, but that's insane, not just inhumane.


Christina Salazar
Systems Librarian
John Spoor Broome Library
California State University, Channel Islands
805/437-3198




-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Coral 
Sheldon-Hess
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:27 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and 
> > bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> Bureaucratic and emotional expenses include yet more committees and 
> politics. Things will happen increasingly slowly. Our community will 
> be less nimble and somewhat governed by outside forces. We will end up 
> with presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, etc. Increasingly there 
> will be “inside” and “outside”. The inside will make decisions and the 
> outside won’t understand and feel left out. That is what happens when 
> formalization take place.
>

So, to be clear: you think this isn't already happening? You think* as it 
stands, nobody is baffled by the operations of Code4Lib, and nobody feels like 
outsiders, not knowing how decisions are made?*

*Would everyone else agree with that statement? *Am I the only one here who has 
felt like a baffled outsider to Code4Lib--who feels that way pretty regularly, 
in fact?

If I'm alone in that, maybe I'll change my mind on the value of structure to 
[potentially!] make things clearer to newcomers.


> The regional conferences are good things. I call them franchises. The 
> annual meeting does not have to be a big deal, and the smaller it is, 
> the less financial risk there will be. Somebody will always come 
> forward. It will just happen.
>

 I was the person who coalesced the Lessons Learned wiki pages from 2013-15 
into a single page in the leadup to the 2016 conference. So I can tell you, 
with great confidence, that the annual meeting DOES have to be a big deal.
It is impossible for it not to be, with so many people showing up every year, 
all of them with different needs that we have decided, as a community, that we 
will do our best to meet. Just *feeding* that many people for one day, without 
leaving anyone out (or, worse, accidentally poisoning someone), is a HUGE 
undertaking. "Just" managing the hotel block and fighting with the hotel over 
A/V and other fees and trying to prevent the host organization from going broke 
is a HUGE job.

I've served as "just" the technology chair for a 400 person conference that did 
*not* do live video streams with captioning. It was a TREMENDOUS job.
It took SO much work, even with notes from the previous tech chair and with a 
really involved conference chair who went to every meeting I went to.
(And I got to be part of negotiations with the hotel, so I have some 
understanding of how big a job that last line from the previous paragraph
is.)

And people who have served as our chairs are on here, *telling us*: It's a 
really big job. It *already is a big deal*.

- Coral
(not Carol :))

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Joshua Klingbeil]

I'm pretty new to C4L, mostly just an evesdropper.

Sounds though what the group is looking for is to form a lightweight as
possible NGO / Non Profit style entity that can operate as an organization
independent of its constituent parts for purposes of liability.

A business law expert, more specifically a not for profit sector expert in
business law (i'm sure one of the Uni's out there has at least one of
those?) would be worth inviting to a conversation like this.

A framework for operating in a lightweight fashion probably wants to look
something like what in Wisconsin is called an Unincorporated Association.

   - http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/184


I'm not familiar with other States' equivalents, but I'm sure most States
have something like it.

An organization of very loosely coupled entities acting in cooperation here
in Wisconsin, which demonstrates a very successful implementation of the UA
organizational model is the CINC Community Area Network UA in the Eau
Claire region of Wisconsin.

   - https://cincua.org/about/governance/



I'm rather interested in seeing how much momentum this conversation
generates, and to see how or if it alters the course of the fabulously
nebulous Code4Lib ship.


Cheers!


Joshua Klingbeil - IT Director
Wisconsin Valley Library Service

*I have learned that when I am able to empty my mind of *
*preconception, predisposition, and
prejudice... *
 *... what remains is possibility!*


*It's easy to answer "No! And here's why not..."
  It's empowering to answer "Yes! Now let's figure out how..."*

-- 


  

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Mike Giarlo  wrote:
>
> >
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> Bureaucratic and emotional expenses include yet more committees and
> politics. Things will happen increasingly slowly. Our community will be
> less nimble and somewhat governed by outside forces. We will end up with
> presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, etc. Increasingly there will be
> “inside” and “outside”. The inside will make decisions and the outside
> won’t understand and feel left out. That is what happens when formalization
> take place.
>

So, to be clear: you think this isn't already happening? You think* as it
stands, nobody is baffled by the operations of Code4Lib, and nobody feels
like outsiders, not knowing how decisions are made?*

*Would everyone else agree with that statement? *Am I the only one here who
has felt like a baffled outsider to Code4Lib--who feels that way pretty
regularly, in fact?

If I'm alone in that, maybe I'll change my mind on the value of structure
to [potentially!] make things clearer to newcomers.


> The regional conferences are good things. I call them franchises. The
> annual meeting does not have to be a big deal, and the smaller it is, the
> less financial risk there will be. Somebody will always come forward. It
> will just happen.
>

 I was the person who coalesced the Lessons Learned wiki pages from 2013-15
into a single page in the leadup to the 2016 conference. So I can tell you,
with great confidence, that the annual meeting DOES have to be a big deal.
It is impossible for it not to be, with so many people showing up every
year, all of them with different needs that we have decided, as a
community, that we will do our best to meet. Just *feeding* that many
people for one day, without leaving anyone out (or, worse, accidentally
poisoning someone), is a HUGE undertaking. "Just" managing the hotel block
and fighting with the hotel over A/V and other fees and trying to prevent
the host organization from going broke is a HUGE job.

I've served as "just" the technology chair for a 400 person conference that
did *not* do live video streams with captioning. It was a TREMENDOUS job.
It took SO much work, even with notes from the previous tech chair and with
a really involved conference chair who went to every meeting I went to.
(And I got to be part of negotiations with the hotel, so I have some
understanding of how big a job that last line from the previous paragraph
is.)

And people who have served as our chairs are on here, *telling us*: It's a
really big job. It *already is a big deal*.

- Coral
(not Carol :))

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Andromeda Yelton]

Eric, I agree that I wouldn't want to have an organization that existed to
govern all things Code4lib - but I don't think that's what's on the table
here. What I'm hearing is a call for a persistent entity that can do things
like sign contracts and hold funds from year to year, pursuant to planning
a conference. The governing documents of that entity could *and should* be
quite narrowly construed to avoid giving that entity powers of community
governance or policy statement.

Would such an entity inevitably have its own insiders and outsiders?
Yes...but that is hardly different from the status quo, which very much has
insiders and outsiders; they are simply not conveniently labeled, which
means they can be hard to identify (for insiders as much as for outsiders).
If you haven't read "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" yet, I commend it to
you.

That said, I am quite fond of the merrily anarchic nature of this library
collective, and I would want to see the devils in the details of governing
docs before I made up my mind. And I find I have a sense of humor about how
awful it apparently is for things to have presidents.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Mike Giarlo  wrote:
>
> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
> >>
> >> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
> >
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> Bureaucratic and emotional expenses include yet more committees and
> politics. Things will happen increasingly slowly. Our community will be
> less nimble and somewhat governed by outside forces. We will end up with
> presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, etc. Increasingly there will be
> “inside” and “outside”. The inside will make decisions and the outside
> won’t understand and feel left out. That is what happens when formalization
> take place.
>
> The regional conferences are good things. I call them franchises. The
> annual meeting does not have to be a big deal, and the smaller it is, the
> less financial risk there will be. Somebody will always come forward. It
> will just happen.
>
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan
>



-- 
Andromeda Yelton
Board of Directors/Vice-President Elect, Library & Information Technology
Association: http://www.lita.org
http://andromedayelton.com
@ThatAndromeda 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Chad Nelson]

I would take issue with the idea that "an existing library non-profit might
be able to do this without that much overhead." I think that we, as a
community, severely underestimate the amount of work it takes to coordinate
a conference like ours.

Fiscal agents are ultimately responsible for the contracts they are going
to be signing. In the case of this conference, that is easily well over
$200K. That kind of risk is no small thing to take on every year. A loss
like that could seriously dent the viability of some existing library
non-profits, and so none of them are going to take it on lightly.  Even in
a model like the one described for OR, asking libraries to be the sponsor
who takes on the actual financial risk is a similarly big ask.

Moreover, throughout the course of the planning, many many contracts need
to be reviewed (sometimes by legal), and signed, often on tight turn around
times (because this conference is mostly run by non-professional event
planners doing this for the first time). It most certainly will be
substantial overhead for a any organization, at least for a short period.

So, with that said, I think if we don't do something to formalize the
fiscal aspects of code4lib, this conference will, and frankly should, die.
Encouraging people to take on the ever increasing amount of stress for the
cool points they'll get for hosting a national code4lib borders on cruelty.

To answer Coral's question, I don't think we need to ask anyone's
permission to form an exploratory committee to look into these things. I'd
think such a group would announce there intent to the community, go explore
some options, and then present the finding to the community, detailing the
benefits and drawbacks.

I'm willing to commit some time to such an effort.

Chad

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:24 PM Esmé Cowles  wrote:

> I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a
> financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership
> committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the
> financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.
>
> I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more
> info on how the arrangement works.
>
> -Esmé
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C  wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
> > enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
> >> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host
> for
> >> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
> >> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An
> existing
> >> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
> >>
> >> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
> >> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the
> arrangement
> >> for another year, including the MOU:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
> >>
> >> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L
> more
> >> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a
> non-profit
> >> organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
> >> lighter-weight option.
> >>
> >> -Esmé
> >>
> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
> >> Christina!
> >>>
> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> >>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind
> the
> >>> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
> >> takes
> >>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to
> get
> >>> the process started.
> >>>
> >>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> >>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think
> my
> >>> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> >>> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> >>> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> >>> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
> >> gut
> >>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> >>> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely)
> should
> >>> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional
> stuff?
> >>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> >>> options are, right now.
> >>>
> >>> One note on the "no, 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Angela Galvan]

> The inside will make decisions and the outside won’t understand and feel
left out.

This happens in all groups at a certain size, regardless of their structure
or organizational mechanism.

> Somebody will always come forward. It will just happen.

That's a faith I wish I shared. The liability is simply too large at this
point to count on the graces of a random fiduciary agent every year.
Structure for liability does not immediately invoke the death-by-committee
hierarchy C4L is trying to avoid.

Angela Galvan
Digital Resources and Systems Librarian | SUNY Geneseo
gal...@geneseo.edu


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Mike Giarlo  wrote:
>
> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
> >>
> >> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
> >
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> Bureaucratic and emotional expenses include yet more committees and
> politics. Things will happen increasingly slowly. Our community will be
> less nimble and somewhat governed by outside forces. We will end up with
> presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, etc. Increasingly there will be
> “inside” and “outside”. The inside will make decisions and the outside
> won’t understand and feel left out. That is what happens when formalization
> take place.
>
> The regional conferences are good things. I call them franchises. The
> annual meeting does not have to be a big deal, and the smaller it is, the
> less financial risk there will be. Somebody will always come forward. It
> will just happen.
>
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Mike Giarlo  wrote:

>>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
>>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
>> 
>> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and 
>> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
> 
> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic 
> expense" to be?

Bureaucratic and emotional expenses include yet more committees and politics. 
Things will happen increasingly slowly. Our community will be less nimble and 
somewhat governed by outside forces. We will end up with presidents, 
vice-presidents, secretaries, etc. Increasingly there will be “inside” and 
“outside”. The inside will make decisions and the outside won’t understand and 
feel left out. That is what happens when formalization take place.

The regional conferences are good things. I call them franchises. The annual 
meeting does not have to be a big deal, and the smaller it is, the less 
financial risk there will be. Somebody will always come forward. It will just 
happen.

—
Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Lynch, Katherine E]

Would be interested to know this too — from my role and perspective in the 2016 
conference, the fiscal organization’s responsibility is a big one, but the 
overhead of securing one every year is a lot more work, emotional and 
bureaucratic, than having an established one would be.  I would envision the 
relationship with the fiscal organization as being an ongoing one similar to 
the annual one we have with a different entity each year.  The actual work of 
the conference is likely to remain a lot of hard work on the part of the 
conference organizers year to year.

I recognize there may be concerns about the impact a relationship like this 
would have on the operations of Code4Lib outside of the conference, I’d be 
interested to hear them too.




On 6/7/16, 4:55 PM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Tom Johnson" 
<CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU on behalf of johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>expense" to be?
>
>And especially, how it doesn't just reflect the existing costs of running
>the conferences? Do we really believe there is overhead associated with
>establishing a fiscal organization once, rather than doing it on the fly
>each year?
>
>- Tom
>
>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> expense" to be?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric
>> Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>>
>> > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
>> > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
>>
>>
>> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
>> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
>>
>> —
>> ELM
>>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Kudzia, Megan]

++ Tom – I think the Code4LibConDocs efforts have been an attempt to remediate 
that somewhat. However, from my perspective, it really makes clear how 
difficult this process is, and how much we’re all asking of the really small 
number of our colleagues who volunteer (!) to take on this task every year.

I hesitate to say this, because I know this has been a huge bone of contention 
for the community, and I know a lot of us have really strong feelings about it 
– but for a bunch of coders/code-literate people, isn’t the existing process 
really deeply inefficient? We’re effectively violating DRY left, right, and 
center.

Just my two cents, and I have never been on the organizing committee (so maybe 
less than two?), and I’m glad we’re having this conversation whatever the 
outcome.

Megan

On 6/7/16, 1:55 PM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Tom Johnson" 
<CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU on behalf of johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>expense" to be?
>
>And especially, how it doesn't just reflect the existing costs of running
>the conferences? Do we really believe there is overhead associated with
>establishing a fiscal organization once, rather than doing it on the fly
>each year?
>
>- Tom
>
>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> expense" to be?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric
>> Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>>
>> > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
>> > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
>>
>>
>> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
>> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
>>
>> —
>> ELM
>>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Tom Johnson]

> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
expense" to be?

And especially, how it doesn't just reflect the existing costs of running
the conferences? Do we really believe there is overhead associated with
establishing a fiscal organization once, rather than doing it on the fly
each year?

- Tom

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mike Giarlo <mjgia...@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> -Mike
>
> 
> From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric
> Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…
>
>
> -1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and
> bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.
>
> —
> ELM
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Dunn, Jon William Butcher]

Another example to look at is Open Repositories, which entered into an MOU with 
CLIR last year to serve as "financial sponsor" for the OR conference series. In 
this model, CLIR does not bear the financial risk of the annual conference but 
essentially serves as a banker for any surplus generated. The host institution 
each year is the one that enters into contracts with hotels, etc., and bears 
the financial and legal risks of hosting, but there is an implied expectation 
that the funds held for OR by CLIR would be used to help cover a loss that 
occurs due to extraordinary circumstances.

Since, like Hydra and Code4Lib, OR does not exist as a legal entity, the MOU is 
between the OR Steering Committee and CLIR.

Jon

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Esmé 
Cowles
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:24 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a financial 
host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership committee.  So I think 
it boils down to being organized enough for the financial host to be 
comfortable entering into an agreement with them.

I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more info 
on how the arrangement works.

-Esmé

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C <jen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able 
> to enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles <escow...@ticklefish.org> wrote:
> 
>> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official 
>> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial 
>> host for the conference, and possibly other things (conference 
>> carryover, scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, 
>> etc.).  An existing library non-profit might be able to do this without that 
>> much overhead.
>> 
>> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of 
>> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the 
>> arrangement for another year, including the MOU:
>> 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
>> 
>> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L 
>> more organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a 
>> non-profit organization.  So having a financial host arrangement 
>> could be a lighter-weight option.
>> 
>> -Esmé
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
>>> <co...@sheldon-hess.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
>> Christina!
>>> 
>>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an 
>>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't 
>>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind 
>>> the investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group 
>>> that
>> takes
>>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes 
>>> to get the process started.
>>> 
>>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the 
>>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to 
>>> think my volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming 
>>> a group to gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a 
>>> community, whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of 
>>> a separate identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional 
>>> Organization (my
>> gut
>>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, 
>>> or become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, 
>>> (unlikely) should Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do 
>>> regional stuff?
>>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all 
>>> the options are, right now.
>>> 
>>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with 
>>> a
>> flat
>>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," 
>>> is that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to 
>>> newcomers, or
>> even
>>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There 
>>> is value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't 
>>> know how
>> to
>>> go about getting &

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Mike Giarlo]

Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic expense" 
to be?

-Mike


From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> on behalf of Eric Lease 
Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 13:49
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…


-1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and 
bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules.

—
ELM

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Eric Lease Morgan]

> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread…


-1 because I don’t think the benefits will outweigh the emotional and 
bureaucratic expense. We already have enough rules. 

—
ELM

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[LeVan,Ralph]

We are establishing a relationship with the DLF for email purposes.  Might they 
be willing to be our organization?

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Esmé 
Cowles
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:41 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: Formalizing Code4Lib?

I remember another option being brought up: picking an official organizational 
home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for the conference, and 
possibly other things (conference carryover, scholarship fundraising, holding 
intellectual property, etc.).  An existing library non-profit might be able to 
do this without that much overhead.

For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of 
arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement for 
another year, including the MOU:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ

In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more 
organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit 
organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a lighter-weight 
option.

-Esmé

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:
> 
> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
> 
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an 
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't 
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind 
> the investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group 
> that takes this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what 
> it takes to get the process started.
> 
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the 
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think 
> my volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group 
> to gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a 
> community, whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a 
> separate identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional 
> Organization (my gut answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do 
> better to fold into, or become a sub-entity of, some existing 
> organization; or, (unlikely) should Code4Lib stop being A Big International 
> Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the 
> options are, right now.
> 
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a 
> flat organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete 
> "do-ocracy," is that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious 
> to newcomers, or even long-term members who aren't already part of 
> those structures. There is value to formality, within reason. I 
> mean... right now, I don't know how to go about getting "permission" 
> to form this exploratory group, right? Having some kind of formal structure 
> would help.
> 
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> 
> - Coral
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina < 
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
> 
>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to 
>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES 
>> OF BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
>> 
>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in 
>> front of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be 
>> willing to cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely 
>> voluntary organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a 
>> couple thousand dollars financial liability, we are now getting into 
>> a HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS liability.
>> 
>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
>> 
>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, 
>> but my feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding 
>> part of the conference... Or choose to go local only.)
>> 
>> 
>> Christina Salazar
>> Systems Librarian
>> John Spoor Broome Library
>> California State University, Channel Islands
>> 805/437-3198
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
>> Of Brian Rogers
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: [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 
>> 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Edward M. Corrado]

At one point Lyrasis offered to do this when Peter Murray was there. I
don't remeber to what degree this was investigated but at the time the
community generally wasn't in favor. I have no idea if Lyrasis would be
interested (and Peter is now elsewhere, I believe) but it might be
somethign to look into.

Edward

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Esmé Cowles  wrote:

> I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a
> financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership
> committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the
> financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.
>
> I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more
> info on how the arrangement works.
>
> -Esmé
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C  wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
> > enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
> >> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host
> for
> >> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
> >> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An
> existing
> >> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
> >>
> >> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
> >> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the
> arrangement
> >> for another year, including the MOU:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
> >>
> >> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L
> more
> >> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a
> non-profit
> >> organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
> >> lighter-weight option.
> >>
> >> -Esmé
> >>
> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
> >> Christina!
> >>>
> >>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> >>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> >>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind
> the
> >>> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
> >> takes
> >>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to
> get
> >>> the process started.
> >>>
> >>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> >>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think
> my
> >>> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> >>> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> >>> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> >>> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
> >> gut
> >>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> >>> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely)
> should
> >>> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional
> stuff?
> >>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> >>> options are, right now.
> >>>
> >>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a
> >> flat
> >>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> >>> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
> >> even
> >>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> >>> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know
> how
> >> to
> >>> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
> >> Having
> >>> some kind of formal structure would help.
> >>>
> >>> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> >>>
> >>> - Coral
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> >>> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
> >>>
>  It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
>  reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES
> OF
>  BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> 
>  Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> >> front
>  of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing
> to
>  cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
>  organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> >> thousand
>  dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED
> THOUSAND
>  DOLLARS liability.
> 
>  I question the sustainability of this present system for the 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Esmé Cowles]

I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a financial 
host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership committee.  So I think 
it boils down to being organized enough for the financial host to be 
comfortable entering into an agreement with them.

I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more info 
on how the arrangement works.

-Esmé

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C  wrote:
> 
> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
> enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles  wrote:
> 
>> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
>> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for
>> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
>> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An existing
>> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
>> 
>> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
>> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement
>> for another year, including the MOU:
>> 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
>> 
>> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more
>> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit
>> organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
>> lighter-weight option.
>> 
>> -Esmé
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
>> Christina!
>>> 
>>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
>>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
>>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
>>> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
>> takes
>>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
>>> the process started.
>>> 
>>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
>>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
>>> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
>>> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
>>> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
>>> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
>> gut
>>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
>>> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
>>> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
>>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
>>> options are, right now.
>>> 
>>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a
>> flat
>>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
>>> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
>> even
>>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
>>> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how
>> to
>>> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
>> Having
>>> some kind of formal structure would help.
>>> 
>>> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
>>> 
>>> - Coral
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
>>> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
>>> 
 It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
 reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
 BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
 
 Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
>> front
 of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
 cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
 organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
>> thousand
 dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
 DOLLARS liability.
 
 I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
 
 PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but
>> my
 feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
 conference... Or choose to go local only.)
 
 
 Christina Salazar
 Systems Librarian
 John Spoor Broome Library
 California State University, Channel Islands
 805/437-3198
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
 Brian Rogers
 Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
 To: 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Jenn C]

This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able to
enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles  wrote:

> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official
> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for
> the conference, and possibly other things (conference carryover,
> scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, etc.).  An existing
> library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
>
> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of
> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement
> for another year, including the MOU:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ
>
> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more
> organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit
> organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a
> lighter-weight option.
>
> -Esmé
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
> wrote:
> >
> > I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
> Christina!
> >
> > I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> > entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> > volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> > investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that
> takes
> > this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> > the process started.
> >
> > And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> > proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> > volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> > gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> > whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> > identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my
> gut
> > answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> > become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> > Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> > Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> > options are, right now.
> >
> > One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a
> flat
> > organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> > that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or
> even
> > long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> > value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how
> to
> > go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
> Having
> > some kind of formal structure would help.
> >
> > So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> >
> > - Coral
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> > christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> >> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
> >> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> >>
> >> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> front
> >> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
> >> cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> >> organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> thousand
> >> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
> >> DOLLARS liability.
> >>
> >> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
> >>
> >> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but
> my
> >> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> >> conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Christina Salazar
> >> Systems Librarian
> >> John Spoor Broome Library
> >> California State University, Channel Islands
> >> 805/437-3198
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> >> Brian Rogers
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> >> Subject: [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 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Tom Johnson]

Thanks Carol! And +1.

Apart from any concern for the the relative benefits or pitfalls of any
kind of *-ocracy, it seems abundantly clear that in order to continue to
hold a large scale national conference each year we need someone to "do" a
stable fiscal agent for that purpose. It would be wise for that fiscal
agent to operate in a way that we, as a community can agree establishes
appropriate accountability.

Count me in favor, as someone who can appreciate the amount of work and
responsibility undertaken by each years' host committee. I believe we can
do this and, if we do it well, Code4Lib (the conference) will be better for
it.

- Tom

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
>
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> the process started.
>
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
>
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
>
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
>
> - Coral
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
> > reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
> > BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
> >
> > Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in
> front
> > of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
> > cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
> > organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple
> thousand
> > dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
> > DOLLARS liability.
> >
> > I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
> >
> > PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but my
> > feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
> > conference... Or choose to go local only.)
> >
> >
> > Christina Salazar
> > Systems Librarian
> > John Spoor Broome Library
> > California State University, Channel Islands
> > 805/437-3198
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> > Brian Rogers
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: [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 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Esmé Cowles]

I remember another option being brought up: picking an official organizational 
home for C4L that would handle being the financial host for the conference, and 
possibly other things (conference carryover, scholarship fundraising, holding 
intellectual property, etc.).  An existing library non-profit might be able to 
do this without that much overhead.

For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of 
arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the arrangement for 
another year, including the MOU:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hydra-tech/jCua5KILos4/yRpOalF6AgAJ

In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L more 
organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a non-profit 
organization.  So having a financial host arrangement could be a lighter-weight 
option.

-Esmé

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:
> 
> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up, Christina!
> 
> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an
> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't
> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind the
> investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group that takes
> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes to get
> the process started.
> 
> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the
> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to think my
> volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming a group to
> gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a community,
> whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of a separate
> identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional Organization (my gut
> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, or
> become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, (unlikely) should
> Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all the
> options are, right now.
> 
> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with a flat
> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," is
> that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to newcomers, or even
> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There is
> value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't know how to
> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right? Having
> some kind of formal structure would help.
> 
> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
> 
> - Coral
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina <
> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote:
> 
>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to
>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
>> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
>> 
>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in front
>> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing to
>> cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary
>> organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple thousand
>> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED THOUSAND
>> DOLLARS liability.
>> 
>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
>> 
>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, but my
>> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of the
>> conference... Or choose to go local only.)
>> 
>> 
>> Christina Salazar
>> Systems Librarian
>> John Spoor Broome Library
>> California State University, Channel Islands
>> 805/437-3198
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
>> Brian Rogers
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: [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
>>