Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

Hi, On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Tim McGeary wrote: > I think Galen’s idea is a good one. Is there a wiki page where we could > gather volunteered or nominated names? I've started a wiki page here and seeded it with the volunteers I know of to date: https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Sponsorsh

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

I think Galen’s idea is a good one. Is there a wiki page where we could gather volunteered or nominated names? And yes, I will confirm that I can volunteer for this committee. I would encourage other former (or future wannabe) Conference Chairs to join me. We have valuable and specific insights i

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

onday, November 06, 2017 4:01 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote Hi, The results of the Code4Lib fiscal continuity vote that concluded on 3 November are now available. A total of 310 responses were received. The first question asked the comm

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

Just a quick line to confirm that this sounds like the right approach to us, from the DLF end. We’re all very happy to have the opportunity to support the community in this way. I want to add my thanks to the FCIG for its careful and thoughtful work on the process — and also to colleagues at L

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

Hi, On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Sarah Walden McGowan wrote: > +1 FCIG. Thank you all for your many months of work and general herding of > the cats. :) > > Who will be reaching out to DLF/CLIR? Will that fall to C4L 2018 local > planning > committee? Or should we be forming a new task for

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

We should form a task force to implement this. While the 2018 LPC (and previous LPCs) will no doubt be called upon for expertise--and, unless the implementation task force comes up with some other clever plan, the currently-serving LPC Chair will probably be DLF's main point of contact for any give

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

+1 FCIG. Thank you all for your many months of work and general herding of the cats. :) Who will be reaching out to DLF/CLIR? Will that fall to C4L 2018 local planning committee? Or should we be forming a new task force to help formalize that relationship? Best, Sarah --- Sarah Walden McGowa

Re: [CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

time to discuss and consider these options. I’m glad to see the process move forward in this selected direction, and I’m happy to help in any way that I can. Cheers, Tim On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:02 AM Galen Charlton wrote: > Hi, > > The results of the Code4Lib fiscal continuity

[CODE4LIB] Results of Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity vote

Hi, The results of the Code4Lib fiscal continuity vote that concluded on 3 November are now available. A total of 310 responses were received. The first question asked the community to decide how to proceed with three broad options outlined in the report. Those options were: a) Do nothing

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

OK, it's time for the *actual* last reminder (because SurveyMonkey went down for a couple of hours shortly after I sent the last one): If anyone hasn't voted yet and wants to, the Fiscal Continuity report is here: https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report, and the election-- https://www.surveymonkey.c

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

> On 30 Oct 2017, at 20:11, Amy Drayer wrote: > > of reading. All good info (although I still don't know what LPC stands > for), but the structure is inconsistent, and there's just a lot of words. I believe LPC == Local Planning Committee (for the conference) Owen

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

On Oct 30, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Amy Drayer wrote: > ...***That said, it seems that the direction this goes may affect those simply > interested in the listserv (specifically, requiring membership at a > potential institution), so despite my points, it does seem necessary to > vote. > > Thank you ag

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

Dear Code4Libbers: First, thank you to everyone who worked on this and pulled all the content together. Some feedback to help potentially understand some of us are reluctant to act. Here's my perspective: * I have never attended a C4L conference (content at other conferences always fit better),

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

On Oct 30, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote: > If your vote is for "do nothing/keep the status quo," then you need to go > make that vote, rather than expecting us to throw out this election just > because fewer than 3500 people have participated in it. If your vote is > anything beside

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

*The fiscal continuity vote closes Friday.* *Please vote!* See below for Galen's message, full of useful information. Here is the FCIG report , and here is where the voting is happening . We have 228 votes, as of the la

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

ersity > Muncie, IN 47306 > P: 765.285.8032 > E: prbut...@bsu.edu > > The University Libraries provide services that support student pursuits > for academic success and faculty endeavors for knowledge creation and > classroom instruction. > > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

Bean Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:20 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea] Or, you could post to the web site, the list, all the channels, saying "raise your hand if you consider yourself part of the code4lib community," and

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: > Each non-vote could be counted as a vote for #1. If so, then we are well > on track for doing nothing. 8-D —Earache > Joke or not, this should not be considered. But you did motivate me to vote. Hopefully others will now as well. To

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

ral Sheldon-Hess Sent: October 24, 2017 4:25 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea] That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum percentage of voters, in part because “membership” i

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

e services that support student pursuits > for academic success and faculty endeavors for knowledge creation and > classroom instruction. > > > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of > Coral Sheldon-Hess > Sent: Oct

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

G] On Behalf Of Coral Sheldon-Hess Sent: October 24, 2017 4:25 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea] That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum percentage of voters, in part because “membership” in

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

In looking over the email chain, Andreas, I suspect you're correct. If I misinterpreted the direction of some of your responses, Jonathan, I apologize. Best regards, *Jason Bengtson* *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ * On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Andreas Orphan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

Thank you very much for answering my question. I'm with you; I agree that this is a very important vote, and I hope that everyone participates. Best regards, *Jason Bengtson* *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ * On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wr

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

To be fair, I think Jason might have read Jonathan's response to Eric as being directed towards Jason. Nevertheless, this conversation is certainly getting... heated. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ruth Frasur wrote: > Whoa. I rarely even read these threads or, if I do, respond just because >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum percentage of voters, in part because “membership” in Code4Lib is such an amorphous thing. We definitely do not have 3500 active members, no matter what our listserv subscription looks like. But we do get close to 500 attendees at

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

Whoa. I rarely even read these threads or, if I do, respond just because of time issues. But Jason just asked a question On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Jason Bengtson wrote: > I asked a question. Calm down. It was not a joke. I'm sorry it provoked > such an unfortunately "animated" respo

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

I asked a question. Calm down. It was not a joke. I'm sorry it provoked such an unfortunately "animated" response. Best regards, *Jason Bengtson* *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ * On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > Do YOU even think that

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

Do YOU even think that's a good idea Eric, or was it just a joke? If it was just a joke, let's not, this is already messy enough as it is. If it was serious, and you want anyone to take it seriously (personally I don't think it ought to be), you should make some argument for why it would make sen

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

No. There is also no such thing as certifying a result, there is nobody in particular bound to do anything as a result of this poll regardless. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Jason Bengtson wrote: > I apologize if this is a dumb question, or something I've just missed or > forgotten, but is th

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

That is a terrible idea, why would you do that? How do you know how many people are "in the community"? How do you know how many of them are still in the community, pay any attention to the listserv instead of just filtering it to a folder and never reading it, aren't out sick, etc. Jonathan On T

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

I apologize if this is a dumb question, or something I've just missed or forgotten, but is there a minimum percentage vote tally required to certify a result? Best regards, *Jason Bengtson* *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ * On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kyle Ba

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

I would be leery of interpreting abstention in that way. Similar logic has been employed in some states to prevent referendums involving tax increases to be passed. My sense is that the low vote total reflects that people understand this is a serious issue requiring an informed decision. Those who

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open [radical idea]

On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: >> Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes cast, so >> far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of this than >> have voted, yet. >> >> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K5MWGNC > > Yes, please vote. Ot

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote: > Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes cast, so > far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of this than > have voted, yet. > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K5MWGNC Yes, please vote. Otherwise

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes cast, so far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of this than have voted, yet. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K5MWGNC On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Galen Charlton wrote: > Hi, > > Voting for the various optio

[CODE4LIB] Fiscal continuity vote now open

Hi, Voting for the various options presented in the report [1] of the Fiscal Continuity Interest Group is now open: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K5MWGNC Because of a delay on my end getting the ballot set up, the voting period is extended and will close at midnight ET on Friday, 3 November 201

Re: [CODE4LIB] fiscal continuity

Woot! On 28 Aug 2017 8:41 a.m., "Eric Lease Morgan" wrote: > This is just a “keep you in the loop” message regarding fiscal continuity > of Code4Lib. > > The Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group — the folks who are > investigating possible financial options when

[CODE4LIB] fiscal continuity

This is just a “keep you in the loop” message regarding fiscal continuity of Code4Lib. The Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group — the folks who are investigating possible financial options when it comes to our community — see its work as almost done. More specifically, because of the

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

ke 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 conferen

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

y 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 >> >> --

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

n > > -- > 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: http://www.lita.org > &g

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

From: Code for Libraries mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee mailto:kyle.baner...@gmail.com>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux

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

Information Technology Association: http://www.lita.org <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/> From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Kyle Banerjee Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report

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

On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" wrote: If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these purposes. Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest much energy in journa

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

If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these purposes. That would be part of the sponsor being able to "hold funds on behalf of Code4Lib." (FCIG report, p. 6.) The particulars of how the Journal

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

I realize the C4L Journal is only a tiny part of this whole issue, but as we look at going with ALA/LITA, (and the others, for that matter, for comparison's sake), I am wondering how and whether the Journal would have a place (since to process royalty payments there would have to be some kind of fo

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

I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us. And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that. Of course, ALA probably doesn't consid

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

Thanks! On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote: > Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to > be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who > pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we

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

Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.) I see

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

> Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for. To be clear, I believe we would be paying them substantially more than

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

My personal objection to the requirement for the conference leadership to be a member of ALA / LITA is less financial and more philosophical. As someone else had written, I became part of Code4Lib because I didn't really believe (and still don't) that ALA and LITA does enough to represent what Cod

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

Hi all, DuraSpace has a long history of stewarding open source software communities as well as sharing infrastructure and resources for groups that need it. We act as fiscal sponsor to groups within our community. If the Code4Lib community thinks it could be a good fit, we can discuss what a poten

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

Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda. I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that requirement, sorry. Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least we, as an organizati

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

Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need not be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest group formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to b

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

Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this info. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman wrote: > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA > membership. > > Kyle Breneman >

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

limited funds for > > professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an > > association that requires them to join another organization as a > > prerequisite to membership. > > > > Elizabeth Leonard > > 973-761-9445 > > > >

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

n > association that requires them to join another organization as a > prerequisite to membership. > > Elizabeth Leonard > 973-761-9445 > > > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf > Of Tim McGear

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

rsday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening] I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA / LITA. This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal

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

From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of Tim McGeary Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening] I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membersh

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

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 Co

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

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 clo

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

> The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are considering, the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity and provides that legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of the hosting. Yes, this matches how it works with many non-library projects I've bee

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

I think I learned something today. Peter On Jul 20, 2017, 5:15 PM -0400, Coral Sheldon-Hess , wrote: > I agree with all of this, except for the idea of using ranked choice voting > (aka "instant runoff voting" aka "IRV") option. For reasons that are > mathematically > interesting

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

Just a couple notes. A) To repeat my earlier assertion, we need to form some kind of organization to do anything. Galen knows what this involves in Georgia, so I suggest that we ask for the community’s approval to do organize as a GA association. We will need bylaws, but we can start with some

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

Hi, On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote: > *When there are more than two options on a ballot, the better approaches, > to find out what a community wants, are approval voting > and its slightly more nuanced > cousin, score voting

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

I agree with all of this, except for the idea of using ranked choice voting (aka "instant runoff voting" aka "IRV") option. For reasons that are mathematically interesting , ranked choice voting is not the best tool to help us determine the will of

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

On 20 July 2017, Galen Charlton wrote: If folks think we're ready to call a vote and move forward, what I suggest we do is a ranked preference vote among the choice of "maintain status quo", "incorporate as a separate entity", or "partner with a fiscal host". Narrowing like this, then finding

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

Tod is accurate in describing the minimal level of formalization that would be required to be hosted by a legally defined non-profit. Each of them would (should) require a charter that details the purpose and characteristics of the project / organization it is hosting and likely a review at some p

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

Hi, On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Karl W Holten wrote: > I would also like to see a vote on this sooner rather than later. The > committee has done > a great job looking into the various possibilities, and I would hate to > see momentum stall out on this again. > > It seems that it is not qui

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

July 19, 2017 2:20 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening] Could we roll out the Diebold-a-tron just to get a sense of where people stand on this? I, too, am in favor of the DLF/CLIR sponsorship, but it would be nice t

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

The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are considering, the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity and provides that legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of the hosting. Let's take OLF, for example. (And Tim or Mike, correct me if I'm wrong

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

Could we roll out the Diebold-a-tron just to get a sense of where people stand on this? I, too, am in favor of the DLF/CLIR sponsorship, but it would be nice to see if the group has a strong preference in one direction or another. Can we vote on the three options, and possibly also allow for pe

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

One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states some form of association, but even those require some level of governance

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

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose wrote: > > ...There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several > steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come > back to the community, that is > This is an interesting and important observation

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

Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who responded thus far. A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his present

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

I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far:  * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal sponsor  * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own incorporation makes sense  * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and

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

As someone who has co-founded and was president of a 501(3)c organization [1] and was a long-time steering committee member of ELUNA, a 501(c)6 organization [2], I believe the adminstriva of being incorporated and a "real" organization, is substantial. I also do not know that it gets us past one

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

Agreed that finding a fiscal sponsor does seem like the best option and that doing nothing is irresponsible. Largely for reasons that have already been articulated. By way of context, I currently sit on the Boards of two non-profit corporations and had some involvement in setting up a different

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

It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want to. Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal continuit

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

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Eric Hellman wrote: > > ...Also, the new CODE4LIB could grow and prosper based on its superior > anarchistic management culture, then acquire CLIR/DLF, LITA and OLF. Then > the end result would be the same. > > While we're at it, we could stage a hostile takeover

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

Having created a non-profit, I can say that there's quite a range of ways to structure and govern such an entity. Code4Lib can't really be bottled up into any legal entity, so even if a Code4Lib entity were created to provide fiscal continuity for the annual conference, the relationship between

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

On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Carol Bean wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up again, Eric. The first time around I pretty > much sat on the sidelines and watched. This time around, I'm waving my hand > vigorously for the incorporation option… > > But is there something I'm missing here? What,

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

I still think the same thing I posted first time this was on the listserv. I think a fiscal sponsor is the sweet spot, if a suitable fiscal sponsor with suitable terms can be found. Incorporating ourself takes a lot of work and additional expense -- both setup and ongoing. It's a real commitment.

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

I'd like to thank Eric, Carol and Tim for resurfacing this thread, Like Tim, I disagree with Eric's ordering, and would place chartering at the top of my list (with incorporation second and doing nothing last). I am not sure why Eric thinks that obtaining fiscal sponsorship from another organizati

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

I think incorporation is long overdue, but I disagree with Eric's order of preference. I can say from experience on a project that incorporating ourselves is a lot more challenging than perceived, and also costly. As a past Code4Lib Conference co-chair and member of the Journal Editorial Board, I

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

Thanks for bringing this up again, Eric. The first time around I pretty much sat on the sidelines and watched. This time around, I'm waving my hand vigorously for the incorporation option. Since 2009, when EBSCO began indexing the Code4Lib Journal, royalties have been accruing but unpayable becau

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

On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton wrote: > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual > conference. [0] When it comes to “fiscal continui

[CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux

Hi, Back in January [1] the Fiscal Continuity IG [2] released our report describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual conference: https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report At the time, the report received some commentar

[CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity Interest Group activities at #c4l17

Hi, Following up on the report [1] of the fiscal continuity interest group that was sent out in late January [2], I want to let folks know that we'll be planning to call both a breakout session and a BoF during the conference next week, as well as arrange to allow folks participate in the discussi

Re: [CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

Some info via googling on fiscal sponsor fees, matching my own (limited) experience. CLIR is offering pretty complete services for what I think is an unusually reasonable fee. "The fee structure should be spelled out in the fiscal sponsorship agreement or policies. Fees can range from token to 25

Re: [CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

I think fiscal sponsorship by CLIR is definitely the sweet spot. It's pretty awesome CLIR is offering on those terms, really, and it's not entirely risk-free for them obviously. It's a real vote of confidence. Setting up your own 501-c-3 gives you LOTS of financial and legal obligations. Even just

Re: [CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

Hi, On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Did you look at other states in terms of becoming a 501c3? I was under the > impression that some states are easier/cheaper than others. Not in depth -- the focus on Georgia was largely driven by the availability of an attorney who I knew

Re: [CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

Wow. This is really thorough! Did you look at other states in terms of becoming a 501c3? I was under the impression that some states are easier/cheaper than others. There's also the Tides Foundation in San Francisco that provides the structure for a non-profit (staff, legal work, fiscal spons

Re: [CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

This is great research and a useful report, thank you all for your work! On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Galen Charlton wrote: > Hi, > > Last year, following a discussion about whether to formalize Code4Lib, > a group of us got together to investigate various options for > establishing a more p

[CODE4LIB] Report of the Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group

Hi, Last year, following a discussion about whether to formalize Code4Lib, a group of us got together to investigate various options for establishing a more permanent fiscal arrangement for Code4Lib activities, including but not necessarily limited to the annual conference. Our report is now read