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 <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 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 leads we pursued finally > > confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or wholly > > informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend with > an > > unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott. > > > > Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading > > together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to > the > > Code4Lib community: > > > > 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning > > Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and > > should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no other > city > > submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and > > responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful. > > 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then we > > suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We > already > > have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the > > implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that virtual > > cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. However, > > given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a stable, > > consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious community, > this > > year is a hard sell across many of the states. > > 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person > > regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We realize, > of > > course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a > predicament, > > unless another region wishes to adopt us. > > > > Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the > > planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in > > Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We > invite > > any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here, Slack, > > IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be > > lurking these days. > > > > And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect to > > those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing the > > raw numbers and not the freeform responses. > > > > Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you > boycott > > Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: > > > > 22.58% Yes, I would boycott. > > 77.42% No, I would not boycott. > > > > Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill, > > would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: > > > > 26.61% Yes, I would boycott. > > 73.38% No, I would not boycott. > > > > Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you > > boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses: > > > > 46.34% Yes, I would boycott. > > 53.66% No, I would not boycott. > > > > Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the conference, > > would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an > > organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 Responses: > > > > 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending. > > 19.83% No, I would still boycott. > > 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.) > > > > Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would you > > consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal funds > > and on your personal time? 122 Responses: > > > > 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend. > > 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend. > > > > -- > > Brian Rogers > > Director of Library IT & Professor > > UTC Library, Dept. 6456 > > University of Tennessee at Chattanooga > > Phone: 423-425-5279 > > Email: brian-rog...@utc.edu > > >