Re: [adhoc] every beginning...

On Apr 13, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Jean Anderson wrote:

>
> I think Laszlo's suggestion of 'Humanities Computing 200x' has the
> benefit of simplicity and clarity; it would be recognised both in USA
> and Europe.

I have no problem with this myself--but for heaven's sake, if we don't
agree on the governance protocol and this whole effort goes down the
tubes, the name of the conference will be moot, won't it? First things
first.

> I know the steering group conference call agreed to only ADHO or
> ICHIO, but neither won a majority vote. We have all been waiting for
> something better.

ADHO has a majority of the ALLC and ACH board members behind it (all
ALLC board members who expressed an opinion, by the time of the vote,
and at least half of the ACH board members). A majority of the
steering committee agreed, in the conference call, to call the vote
between these two options. No one on the steering committee objected
to that question being called, or to the time frame for voting, or to
the clearly announced terms for counting the vote, and all votes cast
were for ADHO, so indeed, we have voted, and we have decided. I simply
will not entertain further discussion on this point. To do so would be
madness on my part, and I am not yet mad.

> I'm sure there is no need of talk of 'standing down' and no opposition
> to the ALLC recommendation of Lisa Lena as programme Chair for 2006,
> is there? A lot of good work has already gone into preparation for the
> 2006 programme.

I would prefer that we all participate, that we all focus on the
questions that the steering committee, by majority in the conference
call, agreed to decide, and that we decide them on something close to
the schedule that a majority of the steering committee, in that same
conference call, established.

On the question of the program chair, I think it is quite important
that we observe the protocol that we agreed would govern us, when we
met in Sweden. That protocol does not permit the ALLC executive
unilateral decision-making with respect to the program chair. I am
not, at this point, arguing about particular candidates, but
stipulating that we should observe the process we agreed to observe.
This is a matter of good faith between the two organizations, and
abrogation of the agreed-upon process, at this delicate point, would be
very unwise. The agreed-upon protocol calls for the host organization,
ALLC, to offer several names in nomination, and it leaves the actual
choice to the steering committee. Since you are all seasoned
parliamentarians, it is probably not necessary for me to point this
out, but the steering committee is made up four members, three of whom
are from the ALLC, so it is hard to see what the ALLC has to fear from
observing the process; however, it is not hard to see what ACH will
feel if the ALLC simply ignores previous agreements and insists that
the decision is to be made by it, and not by the steering committee.
Again, this is like arguing over the voting method: if everyone who is
supposed to participate does so, where does the problem lie?

With respect to the schedule, all I am trying to do is to carry out
those agenda items, agreed upon only a couple of weeks ago, by a
majority of the steering committee. I can hardly believe that there is
such a pitched battle being waged against the only practical method on
offer for accomplishing what a majority of the steering committee's
voting members agreed that we needed to do, within the time limits we
agreed we needed to observe, in our most recent meeting. I urge
everyone, once again, to read the notes from that meeting, in which
these agenda items and the schedule is laid out:

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

I promise you I am not imagining these things, nor am I making them up.

> John is right in his implications that we have been dilatory in
> discussing and deciding things, me as much as anyone. We need to be
> much more active in our committee duties - I'm off to read the
> protocol changes :-))

Thank you, Jean! This is most welcome, and I would very much like to
turn the discussion to that document, which is supposed to be the focus
of our attention this week.

John

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 22:39:51 EDT