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] 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 <co...@sheldon-hess.org>
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 <andrea-sch...@utc.edu>
> 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 <mj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers <pqb...@mocs.utc.edu > 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] 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 <andrea-sch...@utc.edu>
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 <mj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers <pqb...@mocs.utc.edu 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] 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 <mj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> <pqb...@mocs.utc.edu<mailto: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] 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 <mj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Brian Rogers 
> <pqb...@mocs.utc.edu<mailto: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] 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

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] 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