Re: [CODE4LIB] Heroku

[Andromeda Yelton]

I'm a freelance software developer not embedded in a library, but I use
Heroku routinely to host apps I'm developing for fun, or as a testing site,
and one of my clients deploys its production app on Heroku. It took me a
while to wrap my head around, but I love it to little tiny pieces (and once
you do wrap your head around it, it becomes *unbelievably* straightforward).
Do you have any more specific questions?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Louisa Choy  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> My college is using Heroku to host a web application for another
> department.  I'm trying to get a sense of how many institutions out there
> are using it, what you use it for, what the pool of expertise is like for
> it, and what your thoughts on it are.
>
> Thanks!
> -Louisa
>
>
> Louisa Choy
> Digital Services Librarian
> Wheelock College Library
> 132 Riverway
> Boston, MA   02215
> (617) 879-2213
> www.wheelock.edu/library
> (she/her/hers)
>



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

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  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 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> > expense" to be?
>> >
>> > -Mike
>> >
>> > 
>> > From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Eric
>> > Lease Morgan 
>> > 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 
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  wrote:
>
> > Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> > expense" to be?
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > 
> > From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Eric
> > Lease Morgan 
> > 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  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?

[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" 
 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  wrote:
>
>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> expense" to be?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Eric
>> Lease Morgan 
>> 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" 
 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  wrote:
>
>> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
>> expense" to be?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Eric
>> Lease Morgan 
>> 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  wrote:

> Can you say more about what you expect "the emotional and bureaucratic
> expense" to be?
>
> -Mike
>
> 
> From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Eric
> Lease Morgan 
> 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  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 

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  on behalf of Eric Lease 
Morgan 
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] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Shearer, Timothy]

+1

This is a big deal.  And one that has no great outcome.  Y'all deserve the 
appreciation and thanks of the community.  You certainly have mine.

Tim

>My thanks to the Tennessee folks for handling this with such grace.

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 

[CODE4LIB] Chat bot

[Jeffrey Sabol]

Greetings,

Has anybody created a chat bot to answer basic questions (what are the
hours, how many books can I check out) for the Library's chat reference
service?  If so would you be willing to share your code?  I have just
started to explore this so any direction or resources would be of help.  My
Library is using LibraryH3lp, which has a REST api and some limited
resources.

Thank you,

​-​
Jeffrey

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Tom Johnson]

My thanks to the Tennessee folks for handling this with such grace.

I can recall with visceral physicality the feeling of staring at the budget
commitments for 2015, in the days before registration opened. It's a deep
pit we dig ourselves into each year; and it's great that we reliably refill
it, but I think it's past time we as a community take responsibility for it
up-front.

- Tom

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> This can't have been an easy decision. Thank you, to the Chattanooga local
> committee, for all of the work you've already put in -- much of which will
> be, sadly, even more invisible, now that we are not holding the conference
> there.
>
> I'm not sad that we aren't holding the conference in Chattanooga--despite
> wanting to see the city and experience the conference that the locals would
> have planned!--because, finances aside, that legislation would have put
> some of our community members in a real bind, if it passed. I'm proud to
> see our community living its ideals.
>
> - Coral
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Schurr, Andrea 
> wrote:
>
> > Not only quite difficult, but fiscally irresponsible...  We'd be asking
> an
> > organization unaffiliated with Code4Lib to guarantee contracts for
> hundreds
> > of thousands of dollars -- when there is a legitimate concern that
> > Tennessee could pass legislation that would cause almost half of our
> > community to refuse to attend (not to mention the very real possibility
> of
> > being boycotted by entire municipalities/states).  In the end, we felt
> like
> > we made the only reasonable choice.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> > Collier, Aaron
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 1:28 PM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
> >
> > I would guess that the swing between "current" and "if passed" makes
> > securing the financial sponsor quite difficult.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> > Matt Sherman
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:20 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
> >
> > Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it sound
> > like the financing was the bigger issue.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers  pqb...@mocs.utc.edu>> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents
> > were not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would
> > have inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive
> > enough?
> > >
> > > — Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Matt Connolly
> > > Applications developer, CUL-IT
> > > 218 Olin Library
> > > Cornell University
> > > (607) 255-0653
> >
>

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
>> 

[CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

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 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

This can't have been an easy decision. Thank you, to the Chattanooga local
committee, for all of the work you've already put in -- much of which will
be, sadly, even more invisible, now that we are not holding the conference
there.

I'm not sad that we aren't holding the conference in Chattanooga--despite
wanting to see the city and experience the conference that the locals would
have planned!--because, finances aside, that legislation would have put
some of our community members in a real bind, if it passed. I'm proud to
see our community living its ideals.

- Coral

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Schurr, Andrea 
wrote:

> Not only quite difficult, but fiscally irresponsible...  We'd be asking an
> organization unaffiliated with Code4Lib to guarantee contracts for hundreds
> of thousands of dollars -- when there is a legitimate concern that
> Tennessee could pass legislation that would cause almost half of our
> community to refuse to attend (not to mention the very real possibility of
> being boycotted by entire municipalities/states).  In the end, we felt like
> we made the only reasonable choice.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Collier, Aaron
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
>
> I would guess that the swing between "current" and "if passed" makes
> securing the financial sponsor quite difficult.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Matt Sherman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:20 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
>
> Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it sound
> like the financing was the bigger issue.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly  wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers > wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents
> were not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would
> have inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive
> enough?
> >
> > — Matt
> >
> >
> > -
> > Matt Connolly
> > Applications developer, CUL-IT
> > 218 Olin Library
> > Cornell University
> > (607) 255-0653
>

[CODE4LIB] Library Juice Academy courses offered in and July, August, and September

[Rory Litwin]

Library Juice Academy courses offered in and July, August, and September


Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as appropriate.

Most of the classes listed below are four weeks in length, with a price of
$175.

We accept registrations through the first week of class (unless they are
full).

Classes are taught asynchronously, so participants can do the work as their
schedules allow.

Details on these courses are at http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/courses.php



July

Introduction to RDA
Melissa Adler

Patent Searching for Librarians
Michael White

Business and Professional Writing for Librarians
Alison Lewis

Easy Patron Surveys
Jennifer Sweeney

Growing, Developing, and Retaining Dynamic Staff
Deborah Schmidle

Informal Learning in the Academic Library
Lauren Hays and Teresa Slobuski

The Sustainability Movement on Campus: Forming a Library Action Plan for
Engagement
Madeleine Charney and Jamie Conklin

Student Staff Development
Jeremy McGinniss

Observational Assessment Techniques for the One-Shot Instruction Session
Candice Benjes-Small and Eric Ackermann

The SPARQL Fundamentals I - the Semantic Web in action
Robert Chavez


August

Introduction to Project Management
Robin Hastings

Telling Your Story: Successful Marketing Strategies for Librarians
Deborah Schmidle

Everything to Hide: A Toolkit for Protecting Patrons' Digital Privacy
Alison Macrina

Introduction to Book Indexing
Joanne Sprott

Assessing and Improving Your Library's Social Media Presence
Abigail Phillips

Beyond the Basics: Cataloging DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and Streaming Videos
Natalie Hall

Games in Academic Libraries
Lauren Hays and Teresa Slobuski

Bilingual Storytime at Your Biblioteca
Katie Scherrer

Developing a Credit-Bearing Information Literacy Course
Angela Pashia

Introduction to XML
Robert Chavez

SPARQL Fundamentals II
Robert Chavez

Backward Design for Information Literacy Instruction: Fostering Critical
Habits of Mind through Learning Outcomes, Assessment, and Sequencing
Andrea Baer


September

Grant Proposal Development for Libraries
Grace Agnew

Getting to Know Your Users through Interviews and Focus Groups
Jennifer Sweeney

Introduction to Legal Materials for Information Professionals
Eliza Fink

Game-Based Learning in Library Instruction
Scott Rice

Caring for Collections
Beth Knazook

Introduction to Accessibility and Universal Design in Libraries
Carli Spina

Writing for the Web
Nicole Capdarest-Arest

Introduction to Genealogical Librarianship
Sarah A.V. Kirby

Introduction to Readers' Advisory
Jessica Moyer

Exploring and Applying Critical Theory: An Introduction for Librarians
Jessica Critten

Agile Library Operations: Introduction to Scrum and the Agile Manifesto
Aaron Collie

Transforming and Querying XML with XSLT and XQuery
Robert Chavez


While academic programs focus on conceptual understanding of foundations,
we focus on the kinds of skills that library schools generally expect
librarians to learn on-the-job, but which usually turn out to require
additional study. These workshops earn Continuing Education Units, and are
intended as professional development activities. Workshops are taught
asynchronously, so you can participate as your own schedule allows.


Library Juice Academy
P.O. Box 188784
Sacramento, CA 95818
Tel. 218-260-6115
Fax 916-415-5446

inquir...@libraryjuiceacademy.com
http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/

Testimonials:
http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/testimonial.php

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/libjuiceacademy

Check out our jingle:
http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/news/?p=139

Subscribe to our mailing list
http://bit.ly/1YG8qcY

Re: [CODE4LIB] Public Computers

[Joshua Klingbeil]

Hi John,

Nice to see a fellow Wisconsinite on here!

Many of the libraries in the WVLS system do just what you're thinking about
doing.  That is, they utilize Deep Freeze to maintain systems' states but
also utilize fairly open configs for patron computers.  Standard local user
accounts vs admin accounts are about the closest thing to GPO they do for
limiting system config manipulation.  I'm sharing this because it is our
current state.  However, we're also investigating change, looking to extend
AD services to many/most of our small rural library members, and working on
exploring a more library-integrated/embedded model for our technology
services.  So we're actually considering mixing a bit of lightweight GPO
usage along with Deep Freeze, and a standard set of configuration images to
simply re-image a computer if something happens to it in spite of Deep
Freeze and/or GPO constraints.

Our largest member, MCPL, is leveraging the Faronics Antivirus licensing
our system maintains, but they are actually eschewing Deep Freeze entirely
on their patron computers and doing some extensive lock down through GPO.

I know that doesn't really give you a solid sense of "the right"
direction.  Bottom line, if moving away from GPO and relying more on Deep
Freeze feels right to you and/or the technology support staff you have
access to, then it's probably the right move.

I'm probably just as curious as you to see what others have to share
regarding their own preferences and/or successful strategies.


Good luck!


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..."*

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:12 PM, John Klima 
wrote:

> This is cross-posted on LITA-L. Apologies if you're seeing this twice.
>
> We're in the process of making some updates to our public computers and I
> thought I would survey the crowd to see what people are doing to lock up
> access to the 'guts' of the computer.
>
> The computers are all running Windows 7 and have MS Word and Excel
> installed on them. Obviously IE is on the computers and we've also
> installed Chrome because IE gave us some weird issues. We use MyPC and
> Papercut for computer reservation and printing respectively. We're
> currently using group policy to control what the patron can do on the
> computer. All the machines have DeepFreeze on them and the computers reboot
> when the patron logs out of MyPC. We've given some thought to opening the
> machines up and relying on DeepFreeze to 'fix' any changes that happen to
> the system but that makes me nervous.
>
> What types of things are you doing with your public computers?
>
> John Klima
> Assistant Director
> Waukesha Public Library
> 262-524-3688
> jkl...@waukesha.lib.wi.us
>
> The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of
> the Waukesha Public Library or the City of Waukesha.
>

-- 


  

Re: [CODE4LIB] viaf and the levenshtein algorithm

[P. S. Mukhopadhyay]

Congrats Eric Lease Morgan. A real eye opener for me.

Best wishes

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:18 PM, McAulay, Lisa 
wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> I really enjoyed this message. Thanks for sharing!
>
> Best,
> Lisa
>
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
> >
> > In the past few weeks I have had some interesting experiences with
> WorldCat, VIAF, and the Levenshtein algorithm. [1, 2]
> >
> > In short, I was given a set of authority records with the goal of
> associating each name with a VIAF identifier. To accomplish this goal I
> first created a rudimentary database — an easily parsed list of MARC 1xx
> fields. I then looped through the database, and searched VIAF via the
> AutoSuggest interface looking for one-to-one matches. If found, I updated
> my database with the VIAF identifier. The AutoSuggest interface was fast
> but only able to associate 20% of my names with identifiers. (Moreover, I
> don’t know how it works; AutoSuggest is a “black box” technology.)
> >
> > I then looped through the database again, but this time I queried VIAF
> using the SRU interface. Searches often returned many hits, not just
> one-to-one matches, but through the use of the Levenshtein algorithm I was
> able to intelligently select items from the search results and update my
> database accordingly. [3] Through the use of the SRU/Levenshtein
> combination, I was able to associate another 50-55 percent of my names with
> identifiers.
> >
> > Now that I have close to 75% of my names associated with VIAF
> identifiers, I can update my authority list’s MARC 024 fields, in turn, I
> can then provide enhanced services against my catalog as well as pave the
> way for linked data implementations.
> >
> > Sometimes our library automation tasks can use a bit more computer
> science. Librarianship isn’t all about service and the humanities.
> Librarianship is an arscient discipline. [4]
> >
> > [1] VIAF Finder - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/05/viaf-finder/
> > [2] Almost perfection - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/06/levenshtein/
> > [3] Levenshtein - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance
> > [4] arscience - http://infomotions.com/blog/2008/07/arscience/
> >
> > —
> > Eric Lease Morgan
>



-- 
---
Dr. Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Science,
University of Kalyani,
Kalyani - 741 235 (WB), India
---

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Schurr, Andrea]

Not only quite difficult, but fiscally irresponsible...  We'd be asking an 
organization unaffiliated with Code4Lib to guarantee contracts for hundreds of 
thousands of dollars -- when there is a legitimate concern that Tennessee could 
pass legislation that would cause almost half of our community to refuse to 
attend (not to mention the very real possibility of being boycotted by entire 
municipalities/states).  In the end, we felt like we made the only reasonable 
choice.  

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
Collier, Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 1:28 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

I would guess that the swing between "current" and "if passed" makes securing 
the financial sponsor quite difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt 
Sherman
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:20 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it sound like 
the financing was the bigger issue.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly  wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> > wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents were 
> not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would have 
> inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive enough?
>
> — Matt
>
>
> -
> Matt Connolly
> Applications developer, CUL-IT
> 218 Olin Library
> Cornell University
> (607) 255-0653

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Brian Rogers]

It is a confluence of considerations, rather than a question of percentage.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Collier, Aaron]

I would guess that the swing between "current" and "if passed" makes securing 
the financial sponsor quite difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt 
Sherman
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:20 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it sound like 
the financing was the bigger issue.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly  wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> > wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents were 
> not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would have 
> inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive enough?
>
> — Matt
>
>
> -
> Matt Connolly
> Applications developer, CUL-IT
> 218 Olin Library
> Cornell University
> (607) 255-0653

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Matt Sherman]

Just listening in, part of the discussion on Slack and IRC made it
sound like the financing was the bigger issue.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Matt Connolly  wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> > wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents were 
> not interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would have 
> inclined you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive enough?
>
> — Matt
>
>
> -
> Matt Connolly
> Applications developer, CUL-IT
> 218 Olin Library
> Cornell University
> (607) 255-0653

[CODE4LIB] Public Computers

[John Klima]

This is cross-posted on LITA-L. Apologies if you're seeing this twice.

We're in the process of making some updates to our public computers and I 
thought I would survey the crowd to see what people are doing to lock up access 
to the 'guts' of the computer.

The computers are all running Windows 7 and have MS Word and Excel installed on 
them. Obviously IE is on the computers and we've also installed Chrome because 
IE gave us some weird issues. We use MyPC and Papercut for computer reservation 
and printing respectively. We're currently using group policy to control what 
the patron can do on the computer. All the machines have DeepFreeze on them and 
the computers reboot when the patron logs out of MyPC. We've given some thought 
to opening the machines up and relying on DeepFreeze to 'fix' any changes that 
happen to the system but that makes me nervous.

What types of things are you doing with your public computers?

John Klima
Assistant Director
Waukesha Public Library
262-524-3688
jkl...@waukesha.lib.wi.us

The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of the 
Waukesha Public Library or the City of Waukesha.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Matt Connolly]

On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> wrote:

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.

The survey results clearly show that the vast majority of respondents were not 
interested in boycotting Code4Lib Chattanooga. What number would have inclined 
you to proceed, if a 75% affirmative vote wasn’t positive enough?

— Matt


-
Matt Connolly
Applications developer, CUL-IT
218 Olin Library
Cornell University
(607) 255-0653

Re: [CODE4LIB] viaf and the levenshtein algorithm

[McAulay, Lisa]

Hi Eric,

I really enjoyed this message. Thanks for sharing!

Best,
Lisa

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
> 
> In the past few weeks I have had some interesting experiences with WorldCat, 
> VIAF, and the Levenshtein algorithm. [1, 2]
> 
> In short, I was given a set of authority records with the goal of associating 
> each name with a VIAF identifier. To accomplish this goal I first created a 
> rudimentary database — an easily parsed list of MARC 1xx fields. I then 
> looped through the database, and searched VIAF via the AutoSuggest interface 
> looking for one-to-one matches. If found, I updated my database with the VIAF 
> identifier. The AutoSuggest interface was fast but only able to associate 20% 
> of my names with identifiers. (Moreover, I don’t know how it works; 
> AutoSuggest is a “black box” technology.)
> 
> I then looped through the database again, but this time I queried VIAF using 
> the SRU interface. Searches often returned many hits, not just one-to-one 
> matches, but through the use of the Levenshtein algorithm I was able to 
> intelligently select items from the search results and update my database 
> accordingly. [3] Through the use of the SRU/Levenshtein combination, I was 
> able to associate another 50-55 percent of my names with identifiers.
> 
> Now that I have close to 75% of my names associated with VIAF identifiers, I 
> can update my authority list’s MARC 024 fields, in turn, I can then provide 
> enhanced services against my catalog as well as pave the way for linked data 
> implementations.
> 
> Sometimes our library automation tasks can use a bit more computer science. 
> Librarianship isn’t all about service and the humanities. Librarianship is an 
> arscient discipline. [4]
> 
> [1] VIAF Finder - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/05/viaf-finder/
> [2] Almost perfection - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/06/levenshtein/
> [3] Levenshtein - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance
> [4] arscience - http://infomotions.com/blog/2008/07/arscience/
> 
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Salazar, Christina]

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 

[CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga

[Brian Rogers]

Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee:

This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email (https://goo.gl/bs2au7) 
regarding the survey around potential impact on attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib 
conference, given the host of discriminatory/concerning legislation in 
Tennessee.

Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals who took the 
time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues at hand, as 
well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last Tuesday to decide 
how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy questions, and so 
predictably, there were no easy answers.

We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to providing a safe and 
accommodating environment for all attendees, it is morally and fiscally 
irresponsible to continue the effort of hosting the annual conference in 
Chattanooga. This decision was not an easy one, and there were hours of 
discussion as to the pros and cons of proceeding, informed by your responses to 
the survey, as well as our individual opinions. 

This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a fiscal host 
for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, multiple institutions 
in the southeast took a pass, given the size of attendance and increased risk 
of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally confirmed as a “no” last 
week. Those decisions were in part or wholly informed by the financial risk 
assumed by a host having to contend with an unpredictable timeline of withdrawn 
support via geographical boycott.

Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” Threading together 
survey and committee responses, we put forth the following to the Code4Lib 
community:

1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning Committee 
and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host and should shortly know 
the results of that endeavor. Given that no other city submitted a proposal, 
Chattanooga will pass along documentation and responsibility for next year’s 
conference if they are successful.
2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then we suggest 
shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We already have a 
potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the implementation of 
such to the community. All of us agree that virtual cannot replace the feel and 
value of an in-person conference. However, given the mounting size of 
participation and the absence of a stable, consistent funding base, coupled 
with a socially conscious community, this year is a hard sell across many of 
the states.
3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person regional 
conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We realize, of course, that 
this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a predicament, unless another 
region wishes to adopt us.

Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on the planning 
committee wishes we could make this conference happen in Chattanooga. It is a 
grand little city with unexpected delights. We invite any and all questions, 
concerns, responses and conversation. Here, Slack, IRC, Twitter, Friendster, 
Myspace, and wherever else people seem to be lurking these days.

And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of respect to those 
who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing the raw numbers 
and not the freeform responses.

Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you boycott 
Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:

22.58% Yes, I would boycott.
77.42% No, I would not boycott.

Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you 
boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:

26.61% Yes, I would boycott.
73.38% No, I would not boycott.

Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would you boycott 
Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses:

46.34% Yes, I would boycott.
53.66% No, I would not boycott.

Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the conference, would 
you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an organization 
fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 Responses:

34.71% Yes, I would consider attending.
19.83% No, I would still boycott.
45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.)

Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, would you 
consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal funds and 
on your personal time? 122 Responses:

26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend.

--
Brian Rogers
Director of Library IT & Professor
UTC Library, Dept. 6456
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Phone: 423-425-5279
Email: brian-rog...@utc.edu

[CODE4LIB] Job: Content Manager in a non-library position at Analog Devices

[jobs]

Content Manager in a non-library position
Analog Devices
Wilmington

Sales Teams Library Content Manager

HR Title: Sales Enablement Program Specialist:

Job ID 160999

  
Description

  
Being organized and ensuring that the sales enablement platform is predictably
delivering the correct content to our users is a key element of this position!

We are looking for a methodical, process-driven individual who can initiate a
vision and execute a content management system in practical yet impactful
increments. This individual will ensure ADI's sales enablement platform
delivers the optimum sales collateral to our intended audience throughout the
sales process

The position spans across managing content, syndicating content, reporting key
measures as well as the maintaining the backend content infrastructure.

The individual must have the desire to explore new ideas with industry's
practitioners as well as work alongside other ADI teams to streamline ADI's
content management strategy.

  
This position reports into the Sales Learning & Enablement Manager responsible
for content generation and optimization.

  
Initial responsibilities:

• Ensures ADI content publishing process and standards are efficient and
effective

• Drives content policy definition, standards, and guidelines for content
creation, maintenance and governance

• Support sales enablement platform users including trouble-shooting anomalies
and generating reports

• Drive user-ship to the Sales Enablement Platform

• Conduct content audits; synthesize findings into simplified insights and
actionable next steps for improvements

  
Qualifications

• 5+ years of experience in a relevant field

• Proven project management skills with an attention to details

• Ability to translate user needs into technology that improves user
experience

• Strong organizational and proven ability to multi-task effectively

• Highly collaborative and strong interpersonal skills

• Strong oral and written communication skills

• Working knowledge of Accent Technology's product suite an advantage

• Bachelor's degree in Communication or Master's degree in Library Science; an
advanced degree an advantage

  
Please send a cover letter and resume to Whitni.

  
Note about position from Whitni:

This is a non-library position, the team is looking for someone with library
skills to help manage their content and maintain their systems. Someone who is
interested in System Librarianship or Web Technologies and Content Management
would be interested in this position.

  
  



Brought to you by code4lib jobs: http://jobs.code4lib.org/job/26278/
To post a new job please visit http://jobs.code4lib.org/

[CODE4LIB] Job: Data Services Librarian at University of Maryland, College Park

[jobs]

Data Services Librarian
University of Maryland, College Park
College Park

**Title:**Data Services Librarian  
**Category: **Librarian (Open Rank)  
**Department: **Digital Programs and Initiatives  
**Benefits:**22 Days Annual Leave, 15 Days of Sick Leave, 3 Days Personal 
Leave, 15 Paid Holidays Tuition Remission, Health, Dental, Vision, and 
Prescription  
  
The University of Maryland Libraries serve more than 37,500 students and 4,200
faculty at the University System of Maryland's flagship campus and constitute
the largest university library system in the Washington D.C./Baltimore area.
The University of Maryland Libraries share the teaching, learning and research
goals of the university. Recent membership in the Committee on Institutional
Cooperation, a robust organization of Big Ten member institutions, is
particularly meaningful to the University Libraries and will further propel
the university's ascendancy in academic excellence.

  
The incumbent reports to the Manager of Digital Programs and Initiatives
(DPI), serves as the technical lead to develop and design novel, sustainable
data services throughout all stages of the research data lifecycle, and
supports the collection, description, storage,and analysis
of data acquired or generated by researchers. S/he serves as the expert on
technology and tools to support researchers and partners as they manage,
analyze, share, communicate, and preserve their research data. S/he must
collaborate closely with Libraries' staff to ensure Research Data Services are
aligned with the diverse needs of a broad variety of researchers, and s/he
takes the initiative to identify and support the technical needs of
researchers as well as suggest improvements and new services or workflows.
S/he also actively participates in programs and projects in DPI including but
not limited to the institutional repository (DRUM), digital publishing, and
digital collections. The incumbent's goals should be to facilitate broad
dissemination of UMD-generated researcher data on appropriate platforms as
well as ensuring the UMD Libraries is preserving data as necessary and
required by policy. S/he engages in technical consultations with researchers
to identify needs, provides instruction in tools for data collection,
description, analysis, and exploration, and coordinates closely with both
technical and non-technical staff throughout UMD Libraries to deploy technical
solutions for data management. S/he works across disciplinary, departmental,
and divisional boundaries to forge connections between problem sites,
resources, and applications. S/he is the communication hub between a variety
of teams to carry out data curation projects and related programs. S/he helps
cultivate partnerships and strengthen collaborations between researchers,
curators, technologists, and administrators.

  
**Required Qualifications/Education/Experience:**

  * Proficiency with at least one programming or scripting language, such as R, 
Python, JavaScript, or Ruby.
  * Knowledge of issues and technical challenges related to use and archiving 
of digital data.
  * Master's degree in Library or Information Science from an ALA-accredited 
institution of higher education by the start ofemployment, or an advanced 
degree in a relevant field.
  * One year of work experience in the field of data management or information 
technology, in libraries or private industry.
  * Experience administering, developing, or designing databases (relational, 
hierarchical, or graph based).
  * Familiarity with institutional or subject repository systems such as 
Fedora, DSpace, Dataverse, or comparable products.
For the full position description including preferred qualifications, please
go to [http://www.lib.umd.edu/hr/employment-opportunities/staff-faculty-
positions](http://www.lib.umd.edu/hr/employment-opportunities/staff-faculty-
positions).

  
Position is appointed to Librarian Faculty Ranks as established by the
University System of Maryland Board of Regents. Rank at appointment is based
on the successful applicant's experience and relevant credentials. For
additional information, consult the following website:
[http://www.president.umd.edu/policies/2014-ii-
100b.html](http://www.president.umd.edu/policies/2014-ii-100b.html).

  
**APPLICATIONS: **Electronic applications required. Please apply online at 
[http://ejobs.umd.edu/postings/42925](http://ejobs.umd.edu/postings/42925). No 
relocation assistance will be provided. You must be legally able to work in the 
United States; the University of Maryland Libraries will not sponsor 
individuals for employment. An application consists of a cover letter which 
includes the source of advertisement, a resume, and names/e-mail addresses of 
three references.  
  
Applications will be reviewed as they are received and accepted until July 5,
2016.



_The University of Maryland, College Park, an equal opportunity/affirmative
action employer, complies with all applicable federal

[CODE4LIB] OPF webinar: Pre Commercial Procurement for the long-term Preservation of Digital Cultural Heritage, 14 June

[Becky McGuinness]

*apologies for cross-posting*

OPF webinar: Pre Commercial Procurement for the long-term Preservation of
Digital Cultural Heritage
Tuesday 14 June

Programme:
1. Background and context, Börje Justrell (10 mins)
2. The PCP/PPI instrument and how it is implemented in PREFORMA, Antonella
Fresa (10 mins)
3. The PREFORMA Challenge, Bert Lemmens (10 mins)
4. How to contribute and next appointments, Claudio Prandoni (10 mins)
5. Q

Outline:
Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP) is a competition-like method designed to
steer the development of innovative solutions towards concrete public
sector needs. These solutions are developed by external suppliers that are
awarded a contract through a phased open procurement process. In the last
years, the PCP instrument is becoming more and more popular within the
public sector and the European Union increased support for groups of public
procurers working together on joint PCPs under Horizon 2020.

PREFORMA is a PCP project co-funded by the European Commission under its
FP7-ICT Programme to work on one of the main challenges that memory
institutions are facing nowadays: the long-term preservation of digital
data. In particular, the project offers memory institutions an open source
conformance checker that controls if a file complies with the standard
specifications and with the acceptance criteria of the institutions, thus
giving them full control of the process of conformity testing of files to
be created, migrated and ingested into archives. This software development
is carried out in a collaborative environment with memory institutions and
experts. Aim of the webinar is to present the first results of the project
and to invite the wider digital preservation community – open source
community, developers, standardization bodies and memory institutions – to
participate in this process.

For more information about the PREFORMA project visit:
http://www.preforma-project.eu/

Time:
13:30 BST / 14:30 CET. The webinar will last approximately one hour.

Register:
http://opfwebinarpcpdigitalheritage.eventbrite.co.uk

-- 
Becky McGuinness | Community Manager
@openpreserve | Skype: becky.mcguinness1

*Open Preservation Foundation*
*http://openpreservation.org/ *

To find out more about becoming an OPF member or software supporter visit:
http://openpreservation.org/about/join/

[CODE4LIB] viaf and the levenshtein algorithm

[Eric Lease Morgan]

In the past few weeks I have had some interesting experiences with WorldCat, 
VIAF, and the Levenshtein algorithm. [1, 2]

In short, I was given a set of authority records with the goal of associating 
each name with a VIAF identifier. To accomplish this goal I first created a 
rudimentary database — an easily parsed list of MARC 1xx fields. I then looped 
through the database, and searched VIAF via the AutoSuggest interface looking 
for one-to-one matches. If found, I updated my database with the VIAF 
identifier. The AutoSuggest interface was fast but only able to associate 20% 
of my names with identifiers. (Moreover, I don’t know how it works; AutoSuggest 
is a “black box” technology.)

I then looped through the database again, but this time I queried VIAF using 
the SRU interface. Searches often returned many hits, not just one-to-one 
matches, but through the use of the Levenshtein algorithm I was able to 
intelligently select items from the search results and update my database 
accordingly. [3] Through the use of the SRU/Levenshtein combination, I was able 
to associate another 50-55 percent of my names with identifiers.

Now that I have close to 75% of my names associated with VIAF identifiers, I 
can update my authority list’s MARC 024 fields, in turn, I can then provide 
enhanced services against my catalog as well as pave the way for linked data 
implementations.

Sometimes our library automation tasks can use a bit more computer science. 
Librarianship isn’t all about service and the humanities. Librarianship is an 
arscient discipline. [4]

[1] VIAF Finder - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/05/viaf-finder/
[2] Almost perfection - http://infomotions.com/blog/2016/06/levenshtein/
[3] Levenshtein - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance
[4] arscience - http://infomotions.com/blog/2008/07/arscience/

—
Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] code4lib mailing list [dlf]

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On May 12, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

>> Alas, the Code4Lib mailing list software will most likely need to be 
>> migrated before the end of summer, and I’m proposing a number possible 
>> options for the lists continued existence...
> 
> Our list — Code4Lib — will be migrating to the Digital Library Federation 
> (DLF) sometime in the near future. 

This is a gentle reminder that the Code4Lib mailing list will be migrating to a 
different address sometime in the very near future. Specifically, it will be 
migrating to the Digital Library Federation. I suspect this work will be 
finished in less than thirty days, and when I know the exact address of the new 
list, I will share it here.

Thanks go to the DLF in general, and specifically Wayne Graham and Bethany 
Nowviskie for enabling this to happen. “Thanks!”

—
Eric Lease Morgan