In case it is of use, here's a perspective from someone who lurks, cares, and is currently considering attending the 2018 conference --
I'm "here" because I'm a software engineer who works primarily on a digital repository system. I'm on the list to learn about trends in the digital library space and practices/protocols/tools/etc that I can bring to my work to make the software I work on a better citizen of the library software ecosystem. As such, I see myself more as a guest in the C4L community than as a member of it. I'm a somewhat more active member in a few free software communities. From those experiences, I have Many Feelings about community structure, governance, fiscal sponsorship, etc. But because I feel like a guest in this community, I've abstained from voting in the poll. I made that decision after reading and weighing the options presented and considered them in the light of my own experience in other communities. I did not feel comfortable adding my opinion to the scales in *this* community. I would also not be comfortable with it if my decision to abstain from voting were interpreted as an implicit vote for any of the options, as a quorum requirement could do. Hopefully the above is helpful. ~crh On 2017-10-24, Shearer, Timothy wrote: > A potential issue with that first method is that I think a lot of folks lurk, > care, and maybe even attend the conference...but for a variety of reasons may > not post to the list. > > Early in my code4lib days I was intimidated by what I perceived to be the > level of experience and expertise from the more vocal/visible members of the > community and doubted the potential worth of adding my voice. There can be > lots of reasons for radio silence including impostor's syndrome, actual job > function (as compared to idealized job fit), current ability to engage (life > and work get in the way), etc. And so I'm not sure that contributing to the > list is an ideal proxy for "active" for this community. > > Having said this, I'm not coming up with any great alternatives. > > If this particular attempt doesn't seem to end in a clear answer, I'd be > comfortable with that subset of the community that happens to attend the > conference in 2018 making the decision as a collective. I think it would end > up being representative enough. And there'd be the potential for nearly full > engagement (for the attendees) with the voting process if it were a part of > the actual event. > > I really appreciated the reminder, though, as I'd meant to vote but it had > fallen off my radar. > > As a past conference organizer, I'd recommend giving extra emphasis in your > individual deliberations to the voices of those who have struggled with the > realities of being "a community" with no formal mechanism for dealing with > the funds issue. > > Others have done so, but I'd like to pile on with my thanks to those who have > been doing the heavy lifting on identifying the alternatives, investigating > them, and creating this tool. It's a lot of work, but it's important work. > Thank you! > > Tim > [now wearing his imaginary, virtual "I voted" sticker] > > > > > On 10/24/17, 5:01 PM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Butler, Paul Raymond" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > One method would be to count all unique emails that posted to the > listserv in say the last 3 years as a baseline for "Active membership" and > require say 51% of that number to be consider a quorum for this vote. Another > baseline would be the average conference attendance over a period of time. So > many ways to slice and dice this, if it wasn't established prior to the vote. > > Cheers, Paul > ------------------------------------------------- > Paul R Butler, mlis > Library Technologies Support Analyst > Library Information Technology Services (L.I.T.S) > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > P: 765.285.8032 > E: [email protected] > > The University Libraries provide services that support student pursuits > for academic success and faculty endeavors for knowledge creation and > classroom instruction. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Coral Sheldon-Hess > Sent: October 24, 2017 4:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea] > > That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum > percentage of voters, in part because “membership” in Code4Lib is such an > amorphous thing. We definitely do not have 3500 active members, no matter > what our listserv subscription looks like. But we do get close to 500 > attendees at conferences, not all of whom are the same from year to year, so > I will be disappointed in us if we don’t get at LEAST that many votes. > > Speaking purely practically, I hope that we will see enough votes come in > that nobody tries to argue for invalidating the election results because of > it. I will be furious if all of this work was for naught. > > Please vote. > > Best, > Coral > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jason Bengtson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I apologize if this is a dumb question, or something I've just missed > > or forgotten, but is there a minimum percentage vote tally required to > > certify a result? > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Jason Bengtson* > > > > > > *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.j > > asonbengtson.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cprbutler%40BSU.EDU%7C13ba8a3039f84d > > 676f8508d51b1d66fe%7C6fff909f07dc40da9e30fd7549c0f494%7C0%7C0%7C636444 > > 735451074274&sdata=HrecQio34Qyx7D3SAMf7BQriz%2BAOudSoKvoE8qPISaw%3D&re > > served=0 > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.j > > asonbengtson.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cprbutler%40BSU.EDU%7C13ba8a3039f84d > > 676f8508d51b1d66fe%7C6fff909f07dc40da9e30fd7549c0f494%7C0%7C0%7C636444 > > 735451074274&sdata=HrecQio34Qyx7D3SAMf7BQriz%2BAOudSoKvoE8qPISaw%3D&re > > served=0>* > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kyle Banerjee > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would be leery of interpreting abstention in that way. Similar > > > logic > > has > > > been employed in some states to prevent referendums involving tax > > increases > > > to be passed. > > > > > > My sense is that the low vote total reflects that people understand > > > this > > is > > > a serious issue requiring an informed decision. Those who don't have > > > the time or background to fully digest what each option means might > > > well hang back rather than unintentionally indicate a preference > > > that could lead to serious problems. > > > > > > In any case, people who feel the current system is fine and don't > > > want to pursue alternatives can affirmatively choose that we keep > > > things as they are. > > > > > > kyle > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes > > > > >> cast, > > > so > > > > >> far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of > > > > >> this > > > > than > > > > >> have voted, yet. > > > > >> > > > > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > > >> 2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FK5MWGNC&data=02%7C01%7Cprbutler%40 > > > > >> BSU.EDU%7C13ba8a3039f84d676f8508d51b1d66fe%7C6fff909f07dc40da9e > > > > >> 30fd7549c0f494%7C0%7C0%7C636444735451074274&sdata=qbOGUsFut9JQm > > > > >> U%2BctFpDNqPqBpnParSt93vvGE12C4M%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > Yes, please vote. Otherwise, I don’t think we — the community -- > > > > > will > > > > get enough input to make a sound decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here’s a radical idea. There are essentially three choice in the > vote: > > > > > > > > 1. Do nothing > > > > 2. Incorporate > > > > 3. Partner with fiscal agent > > > > > > > > There are approximately 3,500 people in our community. Each > > > > non-vote > > > could > > > > be counted as a vote for #1. If so, then we are well on track for > > > > doing nothing. 8-D —Earache > > > > > > > > > > >
