Thanks for the information Peter (and best of luck at Index Data). Edward
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Peter Murray <jes...@dltj.org> 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 <ecorr...@ecorrado.us> > 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 <escow...@ticklefish.org> > 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 <jen...@gmail.com> 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 <escow...@ticklefish.org> > >> 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 wants to help? > >>>>> > >>>>> - Coral > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina < > >>>>> christina.sala...@csuci.edu> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time to > >>>>>> reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES > >> OF > >>>>>> BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand in > >>>> front > >>>>>> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be willing > >> to > >>>>>> cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely voluntary > >>>>>> organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about a couple > >>>> thousand > >>>>>> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED > >> THOUSAND > >>>>>> DOLLARS liability. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long > >> term. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, > but > >>>> my > >>>>>> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of > the > >>>>>> conference... Or choose to go local only.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Christina Salazar > >>>>>> Systems Librarian > >>>>>> John Spoor Broome Library > >>>>>> California State University, Channel Islands > >>>>>> 805/437-3198 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On > Behalf > >> Of > >>>>>> Brian Rogers > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM > >>>>>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > >>>>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email ( > >>>>>> https://goo.gl/bs2au7) regarding the survey around potential impact > >> on > >>>>>> attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of > >>>>>> discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals > who > >>>> took > >>>>>> the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues > at > >>>>>> hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group last > >>>> Tuesday > >>>>>> to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy > >>>>>> questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to > providing a > >>>>>> safe and accommodating environment for all attendees, it is morally > >> and > >>>>>> fiscally irresponsible to continue the effort of hosting the annual > >>>>>> conference in Chattanooga. This decision was not an easy one, and > >> there > >>>>>> were hours of discussion as to the pros and cons of proceeding, > >>>> informed by > >>>>>> your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a > >>>> fiscal > >>>>>> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, > multiple > >>>>>> institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size of > >> attendance > >>>> and > >>>>>> increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued finally > >>>>>> confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part or > wholly > >>>>>> informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having to contend > >> with > >>>> an > >>>>>> unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical > boycott. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” > Threading > >>>>>> together survey and committee responses, we put forth the following > to > >>>> the > >>>>>> Code4Lib community: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning > >>>>>> Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host > and > >>>>>> should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no > other > >>>> city > >>>>>> submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and > >>>>>> responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful. > >>>>>> 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, then > >> we > >>>>>> suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to virtual. We > >>>> already > >>>>>> have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the > >>>>>> implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that > virtual > >>>>>> cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person conference. > However, > >>>>>> given the mounting size of participation and the absence of a > stable, > >>>>>> consistent funding base, coupled with a socially conscious > community, > >>>> this > >>>>>> year is a hard sell across many of the states. > >>>>>> 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person > >>>>>> regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We > >> realize, > >>>> of > >>>>>> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a > >>>> predicament, > >>>>>> unless another region wishes to adopt us. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on > the > >>>>>> planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen in > >>>>>> Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. We > >>>> invite > >>>>>> any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here, > >>>> Slack, > >>>>>> IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to > be > >>>>>> lurking these days. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of > respect > >>>> to > >>>>>> those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only sharing > >> the > >>>>>> raw numbers and not the freeform responses. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you > >>>> boycott > >>>>>> Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 22.58% Yes, I would boycott. > >>>>>> 77.42% No, I would not boycott. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom > bill, > >>>>>> would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 26.61% Yes, I would boycott. > >>>>>> 73.38% No, I would not boycott. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would > you > >>>>>> boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 46.34% Yes, I would boycott. > >>>>>> 53.66% No, I would not boycott. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the > >> conference, > >>>>>> would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant donation to an > >>>>>> organization fighting against discrimination in Tennessee? 121 > >>>> Responses: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending. > >>>>>> 19.83% No, I would still boycott. > >>>>>> 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, > would > >>>> you > >>>>>> consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal > >>>> funds > >>>>>> and on your personal time? 122 Responses: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend. > >>>>>> 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to > >> attend. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Brian Rogers > >>>>>> Director of Library IT & Professor > >>>>>> UTC Library, Dept. 6456 > >>>>>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga > >>>>>> Phone: 423-425-5279 > >>>>>> Email: brian-rog...@utc.edu > > > -- > Peter Murray > Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager, Cherry Hill Company > Blogger, Disruptive Library Technology Jester - http://dltj.org/ >