Re: [adhoc] majority vote

Folks,

I'll try to be brief and to the point here:

On Apr 13, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Lisa Lena Opas-Hanninen wrote:

> 1. I do not agree that one week is a sufficient amount of time for
> getting
> reactions out of everyone on all the matters to be discussed. I for
> one will be
> travelling quite a bit in the next month and not always able to a)
> access mail,
> b) have the time to look at these things, etc. I'm sorry this is the
> case, but
> then again I agree with Laszlo that just because we are late in doing
> things
> doesn't mean that we should hurry them along. If you, John, feel the
> need for
> rushing things, then I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't change my
> views.

And I'm sorry that you feel you are unlikely to be able to participate,
but that's the situation I am trying to deal
with--non-participation--and I'm trying to deal with it in the only
constructive way that seems open, namely counting the votes of those
who vote. If for personal reasons you are unable to meet the schedule
that we need to keep in order to complete our work, then I am certain
that the ALLC executive will allow you to step down and be replaced by
another representative.

> 2. I agree with Laszlo that 50% is NOT a majority vote and I don't
> like the name
> ADHO so would clearly vote against it. First of all, what does "digital
> humanities" mean? Does it mean that we are only concerned with those
> aspects of
> humanities that already are digital? whatever they are. Or isn't it
> the case
> that we are interested in any humanities and how computing can enhance
> the
> understanding of humanities?

Sorry, but we are not going to reopen the question of other names: that
*was* decided by a majority of the voting members of the steering
committee, in our conference call, as is clearly recorded in the notes
which I have referenced several times in this discussion, but will
point out again, at:

http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/ifdish-sc.03-15-05.html

Please read those notes. You may still vote against ADHO, of course.
The other choice on offer, as agreed in that conference call, is ICHIO.

> 3. I would like to have theconference called something like Laszlo
> suggested
> "Humanities Computing Conference [year]" I would also suggest that a
> better
> name for the umbrella organisation would be Humanities Computing
> Associations
> (HCA). This would tie it in with the conference name, it would be
> meaningful
> and recognisable to those who have been involved earlier or even just
> heard of
> ALLC or ACH before.

Naming the conference is something we do need to do, but I think the
other matters before us are more pressing. We seem to have substantial
agreement on it, in any case, so let's put that question aside until we
have got through the others, please.

> 4. THis brings me to another point: Programme COmmittee Chair 2006
> As far as I know that's me - or at least that was agreed at the ALLC
> Committee
> meeting in Loch Lomond in December and since even the protocols (that
> haven't
> been accepted yet) say that the chair should come in alternate years
> from the
> two organisations (pretty much as before) I took it for granted that
> that was
> the end of that.

The draft conference protocol says:

The Program Chair is appointed by the IFDiSH steering committee. He or
she will be drawn from the membership of the regional chapters, and
will normally be drawn from the regional chapter hosting the
conference.

[http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/allc/adhoc/protocol.html (Section
B.4)]

and the annex to that protocol says:

The Executive Council of the regional chapter hosting the conference
will provide the IFDiSH steering committee with some names of potential
Program Committee Chairs, and although the steering committee need not
limit itself to these names, it is expected that there will be
discussion and cooperation between the regional chapter and the
steering committee in coming to a decision. Although the Program
Committee Chair is normally drawn from the regional chapter hosting the
conference, there may be exceptional circumstances that occasionally
dictate otherwise: for instance, if a small regional chapter were
hosting the conference and didn't feel able to provide a provide a
Program Chair.

[http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/allc/adhoc/protocol_annex.html
("Program Committee Chair and Local Organizer")]

Both of these documents are dated June 2004, and the minutes from the
steering committee meeting for that June state:

iii. Conferences

a. The conference committee was charged with becoming a standing
committee. Julia Flanders will serve as Chair.

b. The Executive Councils of both ACH and ALLC have firmly and finally
approved the IFDISH Conference protocol and annex materials.

c. The new protocols will be used by the 2005 Program Committee to
guide them in their work, and this committee should try to resolve any
problems with these protocols, in consultation with the IFDISH
Conference Committee.

[http://www.ach.org/adhoc/steering/2004.02/]

Even if we feel it necessary to bring the conference protocol to both
executives again for a vote, because of changes since the June 2004
version, or because one of the executives does not feel it has actually
voted on the protocol, we are still operating under authority delegated
by two organizations which have, in principle, approved the draft
protocol and agreed that the next conference will be guided by it. The
language of the protocol is clear: "The Program Chair is appointed by
the IFDiSH steering committee" -- so the ALLC executive cannot make
this decision unilaterally. The language of the protocol annex is also
clear in saying that "The Executive Council of the regional chapter
hosting the conference will provide the IFDiSH steering committee with
some names of potential Program Committee Chairs, and although the
steering committee need not limit itself to these names, it is expected
that there will be discussion and cooperation between the regional
chapter and the steering committee in coming to a decision." So, as
chair of the steering committee, I would welcome nominations--more than
one nomination, in fact--from the ALLC executive.

> 5. Protocols. Yes, the ALLC COmmittee only got through one of them in
> December
> and it was agreed that we would look at the others this spring. The
> one we did
> look at had some major changes and in all honesty, I wouldn't be able
> to vote
> for anything that didn't take those changes into account, since I feel
> I'd be
> voting against the express wishes of the ALLC COmmittee.

The changes that the ALLC recommended are all represented in the draft
that's up in the left-hand frame at:

http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/adhoframe.html, marked in red. I
have no objection to them, and I don't expect that the ACH executive
will either, but I think the steering committee now needs to actually
read the document as it stands and discuss that draft. More generally,
I feel strongly that voting members of this committee have a
responsibility to their organizations and to their colleagues to
participate in the work of the committee, to read the documents that
have been produced and approved or advanced to the next stage in the
approval process, and to remember and abide by previously agreed upon
principles.

John

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 12:43:10 EDT