LITA, LLAMA, ALCTS collaboration FAQ #4: expressions of support, LITA/Code4Lib collaboration

On February 23, I posted for discussion a proposal on a closer formal relationship between LITA, LLAMA, and ALCTS. That included an anonymous feedback form where you can ask questions, express feelings, et cetera. I will be collating and answering these questions every few weeks here on LITAblog (so please keep asking!).

Since that time I’ve gotten six (!) questions/comments. I’m going to break them up across several posts; here are the last four. (The first two are addressed in the previous post.)

As a member of ALA for over 40 years, I applaud this effort and would urge that these 3 divisions actually merge into one unit to reflect the changing structure and integration of libraries today….It’s been very confusing for a long time over who does what program and duplication is wasteful. And paying dues for 3 different sections has been frustrating….Good luck with all this!

Rejoice! I like simplification and this merger makes sense to me in this day and age of complexities.

I’m a director of cataloging at a university and active in ALCTS, but not in LITA or LLAMA. I did try LITA for a year, and while really interesting, it was a bit too far out of my regular scope of work to justify continuing to pay for it. I have frequently flirted with the idea of joining LLAMA, particularly as I take on increasing responsibility for management and leadership. Personally, I think a merger of all 3 organizations would be the most exciting and potentially useful direction for members (at least it would be for me, and I think there are others like me out there). I would love to be able to remain in my ‘home’ organization but also benefit from LLAMA resources and find ways to communicate, connect, and collaborate with LITA folks. I would ideally also like to do this without paying additional membership charges, although I don’t care what we call the new organization as long as everyone is happy. 🙂 I think there is a wealth of conversations, programming, and very healthy cross-pollination that could come out of this merger, and really look forward to it happening. And I do hope it is a merger and not just a realignment, as I think a realignment brings the risk of these organizational silos being redeveloped in the future.

Thank you all for your involvement and your support.

Has anyone considered a collaboration between LITA and Code4Lib?

Yes!

I want to acknowledge first that collaborating with Code4Lib doesn’t work the same way that organizational collaboration usually does, since they’re a decentralized collective without an incorporated legal form or a governance structure. Code4Lib is fundamentally a do-ocracy and therefore it’s frequently easier for Code4Lib to approach LITA than the reverse.

That said, there’s a ton of informal collaboration going on. Many involved LITA members are also involved Code4Lib members. I’m actually going back and forth between this WordPress window and the Code4Lib Slack channel right now, and I keynoted the conference a few years ago; LITA VP Bohyun Kim was on the planning committee for the most recent Code4Lib. (I’m in awe of her time management skills.) I can think of a long list of people off the top of my head who have had significant roles in both communities. If both are relevant to your interests, involvement in both is excellent and I highly encourage it.

LITA was also among the organizations that offered to act as fiscal sponsor for the Code4Lib conference last year. While the Code4Lib community ultimately decided to go in another direction, this illustrates that LITA has high situational awareness of Code4Lib and is prepared to be formally involved when opportunities that make sense present themselves.