I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA / LITA. This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who is willing to host / lead conferences.
Tim On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess <co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote: > Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*. > That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we > probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors have > called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given us, that > come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I encourage everyone > to read the report in its entirety, because you might see things in it that > I do not): > > From the report section about fiscal sponsorship > < > https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report#Option_2:_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsorship_from_an_External_Organization > > > : > > Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely to > choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly recommend > that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the individuals would > be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue." > > Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we > expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers must > be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be written into > LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," because that's > their most flexible option; but that doesn't really require formal bylaws, > let alone incorporation. As someone who has put a LITA interest group > together, I can assure you of that.) > > I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from some of > the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a single > organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, like > DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee would > serve just fine in that role. > > For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and > formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib establish an > MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that Code4Lib’s annual > conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF member > organizations. ... CLIR > would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance” > processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR > expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and > indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single > point of contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to > CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing > committees and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities > that currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some > other groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on > hosting of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how > grassroots leadership happens in the community!"' > > So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or > something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give that > work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to incorporate, *if > we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might *opt* to incorporate. It > might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement. > > Thanks, > Coral > Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for sending > two long messages in a single day. > -- Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary 484-294-7660 (Google Voice)
