Re: [CODE4LIB] OCR software

[Laura Buchholz]

We use Abby Finereader for things that will need correction (yearbooks
where the text was handwritten, for example), and Acrobat for things that
we're not willing to spend the time correcting. Finereader is good if you
really want the OCR perfectly formatted, as it can handle tables and charts
and vertical text and such, and would be especially useful if you're
planning for providing access to people with disabilities, where the
quality of formatting matters.

On Jul 20, 2017 8:25 AM, "Mark Watkins"  wrote:

> I have a recently released a bookclub - related app called Bookship, which
> features the ability to scan a page of text from a book so users can post
> quotes. (www.bookshipapp.com). So my use case is people taking pictures
> of pages with their phone and OCR-ing it.
>
> I extensively tested Tesseract (an open source project at this point, not
> a formal Google product I don't think), and compared it Google Cloud Vision
> API's OCR product (https://cloud.google.com/vision/). For my use case,
> Google Cloud API blew away Tesseract. Tesseract really struggled with
> images that weren't perfectly vertical/horizontal and had difficulty
> dealing with the top and bottom of images (i.e. if a line got cut in half
> by the picture, Tesseract produced a few lines of gibberish at the top. The
> Google Cloud API seems to be nearly flawless at all of that. And was an
> order of magnitude faster. And also provides additional features (entity
> extraction, objectionable content, etc).
>
> Of course, Tesseract is free and the Google product requires licensing -
> although provides a limited (1000/month I think) for free.
>
> And of course these results may be due to my use case or my incorrect
> setup somehow..
>
> Your Mileage May Vary :)
>
> Mark
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Karen Coyle]

+1 to delegate to committee. - kc

On 7/26/17 9:16 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that, first
> figure out if people agree the status quo is no good...
> 
> We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG.
> They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the various
> options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on getting more
> information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need to create
> another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom proposes, I
> think.
> 
> I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal
> Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making
> practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as
> the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the
> ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ).
> 
> I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think it's
> info for the Fiscal Continuity WG.  They'd probably follow it, unless they
> have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be
> disastrous.
> 
> I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the
> poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more
> questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the
> status quo, then...".
> 
> I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the
> community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip
> that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for
> people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any
> of the options presented.
> 
> I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is
> fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and
> that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by
> discussion.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer  wrote:
> 
>> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the
>> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions
>> apart, I think we should start with one simple question:
>>
>> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
>> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
>> b. maintain the status quo?
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed with
>> a mandate to
>>
>> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on the
>> Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
>> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib community,
>> and
>> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation
>> paperwork on behalf of the community.
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue
>> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to
>> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.
>>
>> - Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun  b...@hshsl.umaryland.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them
>> mentioned in the email thread so far.
>>
>> As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC
>> Conference, here are some things that I would like to share.
>>
>> --- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L
>> people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only
>> those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in
>> an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library
>> to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose
>> and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be
>> lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more
>> diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and
>> participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation
>> and location.
>>
>> (Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of
>> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no
>> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same
>> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
>> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
>> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
>> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal,
>> period.)
>>
>> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as
>> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc.
>> These are 

[CODE4LIB] Job: Data Services Librarian at University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Library System

[Code4Lib Jobs]

The University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System (HSLS) invites 
applications for the newly created position of Data Services Librarian. The 
main roles of this position will be to populate and promote the Library’s Data 
Catalog by creating and curating metadata to describe datasets generated by 
researchers in the schools of the health sciences (Medicine, Dental Medicine, 
Pharmacy, Nursing, Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, and Public Health) and 
to plan and conduct outreach efforts to encourage data catalog contributions.

This individual will report to the Coordinator of Data Services and will be a 
member of the library’s Data Services Team, which offers support, 
consultations, and customized training to researchers organizing and describing 
their data, writing data management plans, locating datasets for reuse, and 
creating data visualizations. This individual will also work closely with the 
Data Catalog’s systems programmers and HSLS library liaisons to the schools of 
the health sciences.

Responsibilities

Develop and implement methods to identify datasets for inclusion into the Data 
Catalog.
Create, curate, and maintain accurate metadata for datasets.
Assist researchers with submitting their own metadata to the Data Catalog.
Plan, conduct, and document outreach initiatives to researchers and other 
stakeholders across campus in collaboration with the library liaisons.
Assist in the development of a marketing strategy and enact plans for assessing 
and promoting the Data Catalog.
Suggest metadata schema edits if needed based on personal experiences and 
researcher consultations.
Direct researchers to platforms or repositories for data storage.
Participate in research projects and contribute to manuscripts related to the 
Data Catalog.
Collaborate and regularly engage with colleagues at other institutions who also 
have a data catalog (NYU for example: https://datacatalog.med.nyu.edu/).
Other duties within the Data Services Team and the Library as assigned.

Required qualifications

MLS from ALA-accredited institution or advanced degree in a related field.
Familiarity with the research data lifecycle.
Strong understanding of metadata and experience in describing digital content.
Documented ability to plan, organize, and implement outreach activities in an 
academic or other relevant setting.
Ability to interact effectively with researchers for one-on-one consultations.
Ability to perform detailed work accurately.
Documented ability to work independently and in teams.
Excellent oral and written communication skills.
Excellent organizational skills.

Preferred qualifications

Candidates with health sciences or research backgrounds and work experience in 
a research-intensive university setting.
Knowledge of data management requirements for federal grants and publishers.
Familiarity with institutional repositories.
Understanding of the FAIR Data Principles and the need for various access 
rights to data.

Minimum starting salary is $50,000. Position is a full-time, non-tenured 
faculty librarian. The University of Pittsburgh is an EEO/AA/M/F/Vets/Disabled 
Employer. The University supports diversity initiatives and encourages 
minorities to apply. For more information, refer to the University’s required 
workplace postings.

For more information about the University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library 
System, visit www.hsls.pitt.edu.

For more information about the University of Pittsburgh, visit www.pitt.edu.

Pittsburgh, PA, is an attractive city with a reasonable cost of living. Money 
magazine recently ranked Pittsburgh as the most livable big city in the 
Northeastern United States: http://time.com/money/3989171/best-big-cities-2015/ 
and Time magazine recently created a video on the “Rebirth of Pittsburgh": 
http://time.com/pittsburgh.



Brought to you by code4lib jobs: 
https://jobs.code4lib.org/jobs/27726-data-services-librarian

[CODE4LIB] Job: Institutional Repository Librarian at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

[Code4Lib Jobs]

The UTRGV Library is hiring! We’ll be filling several important positions come 
Fall 2017. Join us in building a library for the 21st Century. The Rio Grande 
Valley has a rich cultural heritage, low cost of living, and blossoms with new 
opportunities. If you’re a librarian with a passion for education, creative 
ideas, and a willingness to relocate, UTRGV is the place for you!

 

Institutional Repository Librarian

Develops, implements, and maintains an institutional repository (IR) for the 
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Leads the Library’s efforts to promote 
the IR as an integrated tool in scholarly communication and research throughout 
the university.

• Manages the daily operations of the IR, including adding and editing content, 
as well as training librarians and staff on use and workflows.
• Creates and updates IR policies, procedures, and other necessary 
documentation in consultation with colleagues within the University Library.
• Serves as primary liaison to the Texas Digital Library, of which the UTRGV 
Library maintains membership.
• Works with the Metadata Librarian and Head of Special Collections and 
Archives to develop appropriate workflows and schema for ingesting and 
maintaining data and digital materials.
• Serves as a library resource on copyright, fair use, and open access issues.
• Consults with faculty and researchers throughout UTRGV to promote the 
retention and accessibility of research output.
• Promotes the IR to the campus community and solicits content from university 
stakeholders.
• Ensures that IR materials are discoverable via the web and the UTRGV Library 
website.



Brought to you by code4lib jobs: 
https://jobs.code4lib.org/jobs/27724-institutional-repository-librarian

[CODE4LIB] Job: Metadata Librarian at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

[Code4Lib Jobs]

The UTRGV Library is hiring! We’ll be filling several important positions come 
Fall 2017. Join us in building a library for the 21st Century. The Rio Grande 
Valley has a rich cultural heritage, low cost of living, and blossoms with new 
opportunities. If you’re a librarian with a passion for education, creative 
ideas, and a willingness to relocate, UTRGV is the place for you!

 

Metadata Librarian

• Identifies and oversees the creation and maintenance of descriptive, 
technical, and preservation metadata for the UTRGV Library, its digital 
collections, and its institutional repository.
• Creates, enhances, and performs quality control on non-MARC metadata for 
digital collections while adhering to local policies and international metadata 
standards and best practices.
• Responsible for training and oversight over the work of individuals involved 
with cataloging/data input for digital collections.
• Works with library and university departments to streamline ingestion of 
collections and automate metadata workflows.
• Audits existing digital collections and participates in migration of legacy 
digital collections to new platforms, ensuring compliance with established 
metadata standards.
• Serve as a liaison to internal and external research partners on 
collaborative metadata projects.

 



Brought to you by code4lib jobs: 
https://jobs.code4lib.org/jobs/27725-metadata-librarian

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Honestly, from this discussion, I suspect we already have rough consensus,
and expect the poll results to be: CLIR as a Fiscal Sponsor.  I think there
is pretty widespread, although not unanimous, support for that direction in
this discussion.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Rochkind 
wrote:

> While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that,
> first figure out if people agree the status quo is no good...
>
> We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG.
> They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the
> various options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on
> getting more information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need
> to create another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom
> proposes, I think.
>
> I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal
> Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making
> practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as
> the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the
> ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ).
>
> I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think
> it's info for the Fiscal Continuity WG.  They'd probably follow it, unless
> they have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be
> disastrous.
>
> I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the
> poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more
> questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the
> status quo, then...".
>
> I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the
> community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip
> that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for
> people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any
> of the options presented.
>
> I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is
> fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and
> that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by
> discussion.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer  wrote:
>
>> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the
>> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions
>> apart, I think we should start with one simple question:
>>
>> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
>> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
>> b. maintain the status quo?
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed
>> with a mandate to
>>
>> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on
>> the Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
>> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib
>> community, and
>> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation
>> paperwork on behalf of the community.
>>
>> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue
>> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to
>> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.
>>
>> - Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun  to:b...@hshsl.umaryland.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them
>> mentioned in the email thread so far.
>>
>> As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC
>> Conference, here are some things that I would like to share.
>>
>> --- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L
>> people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only
>> those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in
>> an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library
>> to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose
>> and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be
>> lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more
>> diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and
>> participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation
>> and location.
>>
>> (Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of
>> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no
>> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same
>> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
>> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
>> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
>> change their 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that, first
figure out if people agree the status quo is no good...

We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG.
They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the various
options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on getting more
information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need to create
another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom proposes, I
think.

I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal
Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making
practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as
the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the
ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ).

I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think it's
info for the Fiscal Continuity WG.  They'd probably follow it, unless they
have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be
disastrous.

I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the
poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more
questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the
status quo, then...".

I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the
community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip
that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for
people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any
of the options presented.

I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is
fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and
that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by
discussion.

Jonathan

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer  wrote:

> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the
> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions
> apart, I think we should start with one simple question:
>
> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
> b. maintain the status quo?
>
> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed with
> a mandate to
>
> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on the
> Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib community,
> and
> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation
> paperwork on behalf of the community.
>
> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue
> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to
> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun > wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them
> mentioned in the email thread so far.
>
> As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC
> Conference, here are some things that I would like to share.
>
> --- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L
> people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only
> those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in
> an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library
> to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose
> and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be
> lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more
> diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and
> participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation
> and location.
>
> (Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of
> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no
> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same
> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal,
> period.)
>
> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as
> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc.
> These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will
> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with
> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our
> 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tom Cramer]

This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the “why” 
of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions apart, I 
think we should start with one simple question:

In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
b. maintain the status quo?

If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed with a 
mandate to

1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on the 
Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib community, and
3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation 
paperwork on behalf of the community.

If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue (or 
not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to non-profits, 
fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.

- Tom



On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun 
> wrote:

Hi all,

Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them 
mentioned in the email thread so far.

As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC Conference, 
here are some things that I would like to share.

--- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L people 
to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only those 
affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in an 
empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library to 
take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose and host 
a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be lifted. My hope is 
that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more diverse and grassroots 
groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and participate in C4L 
conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation and location.

(Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of people 
without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no one or no 
group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same year. In the 
current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what happened after last 
year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the 1-year contract, which 
they initially did not want to do. If they didn't change their position, there 
would have been no DC hosting proposal, period.)

--- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as 
negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc. 
These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will 
inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with DLF 
(Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our conference 
tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference planning, budget 
management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics saves us money. If 
our goal is to create the best conference experience (including conference 
planning experience for LPC and other committee volunteers) and if we can 
afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and professional conference 
planning, then I say that's money well-spent and worthwhile investment for the 
long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L conference.

--- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT required to 
enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this year, the current 
LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for the 2018 DC conference. 
Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in terms of fund transfer and 
fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib community. I highly doubt any org we 
discussed as potential future sponsor would be remotely interested in taking 
away our autonomy. The fiscal sponsor has no saying in programming or anything 
else. Its involvement is limited to the conference logistics only, and all 
decisions are mediated and finalized by the C4L LPC.

Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting up 
bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that that 
is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating successfully so 
far based upon group consensus (from discussion + occasional heated arguments) 
and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal entity with the board that formally 
governs with bylaws is a far far greater change to C4L as it currently is than 
getting a fiscal sponsor with a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to 
get us more stability in annual conference logistics.

Cheers,
Bohyun

--
Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/
Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology Association: 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Governance for Code4Lib

[Morgan McKeehan]

I had a couple thoughts/questions about the timeframe for voting, and the
method for voting.

*timeframe for voting *

I think we should stick with Galen’s proposed voting time frame of August
14-25, as a minimum amount of time; I agree that the voting window should
be at least two weeks long.


Starting the voting before August 14 seems OK, as long as that could allow
for enough time to complete the OLF and DuraSpace sections with the same
degree of thoroughness that went into the discussions with previous
organizations.

If possible, I think the FCIG should follow the same process with OLF and
DuraSpace that we used in our other discussions: gather responses from the
organization based on the list of questions for potential sponsors, offer a
follow-up conversation for any clarifications, share a draft of the option
for discussion within the FCIG, and then share the report with the broader
c4l list. I believe that we should be consistent in this process so that
the terms of each option are represented as fairly and accurately as
possible, and so that FCIG members have time to think through/talk through
any concerns or questions about an option before including it in the
report. I think it will likely take until at least August 4 to complete
these steps.

*method for voting*

I understand the reasons for the suggestion of approval voting, but I’m
concerned about the wording for the questions if we use this method. To me,
the example questions read in a way that puts the voter in a somewhat
passive role: the options read like things that would be done, by some
external agent/a circumstance that would arrive, and the voter is being
asked whether or not they would find that circumstance acceptable when it
arrives. (examples in this thread: [3] https://lists.clir.org/cgi-
bin/wa?A2=CODE4LIB;7084ab47.1707)


I’d prefer that the questions are framed so that voter is in a more active
position: “which option should we implement? which route do you see as the
best choice?” I know the suggested question format was just an initial
example to demonstrate the concept of approval voting - but I see this
active/participatory role as an important quality to integrate into the
ballot, especially since  “maintain status quo” (do nothing) could have the
momentum of loss aversion. For this reason, I’m strongly in favor of the
suggestion to draft the ballot in github.


- Morgan




On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Galen Charlton 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Eric Hellman  wrote:
> > 1. There's a point of fact that is still being disputed/discussed:
> whether formalization
> >  is required by potential fiscal sponsor. It's straightforward to answer
> this before any
> >  poll is conducted -  ask the potential fiscal sponsors to weigh in on
> the question.
>
> DLF/CLIR has responded to this question, and the ALA/LITA section of
> the FCIG report also speaks to this question.
>
> Regarding the broader question of whether Code4Lib can seek a fiscal
> sponsor as an unincorporated organization, I agree with Jonathan and
> others that it is possible. Here's some additional light reading in
> support of that point: [1] [2].
>
> > 2. There's been conflicting suggestions as to the voting method.
> (Approval vs. ranked).
> > The scary word "quorum" has been mentioned. There also needs to be some
> discussion
> > and consensus on exactly what the options to be voted on will say.
> Probably this works
> > better with issues in a github repo.
>
> I like Coral's suggestion [3] to hold a single vote that poses several
> questions. As Coral mentioned just now, the FCIG is expecting
> proposals from OLF and DuraSpace soon and will update the report as
> they come in. My initial message this month [4] proposed 14 to 25
> August for the vote. Based on the discussion so far, we may well be
> able to hold a vote sooner.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that some have expressed that the voting
> period should be loudly announced. I also think that it should be at
> least two weeks long.
>
> > And I have to point out that right after asserting that Code4Lib "lacks
> a mechanism for
> > calling the question", Andromeda invoked a Code4Lib mechanism for
> calling the question.
>
> And I would like to emphasize that from my point of view, Code4Lib
> already has a governance mechanism, or at least a decision mechanism,
> and it's one that I think can suffice for the short- and medium-term.
> We have used the Diebold-o-tron over the years to choose conference
> hosts and local planning committees, thereby expressing trust that
> each LPC would work to put on a good conference and responsibly use
> any seed money that was passed on from the previous year.
>
> It's not a far stretch to extend this sort of community vote to cover
> the following questions:
>
> * whether to incorporate, adopt a fiscal sponsor, or do nothing (and
> in fact, I see no other way that this decision could be made