Re: [adhoc] schedule for upcoming discussion and voting

Hello Everyone!

I have had long conversations with Jean over the last two weeks and have started
to look at the governance protocol stuff recently. I like some of Lorna's
suggestions and think we should take them on board, but will return to them
later.

I would like to disagree with you John about the PC 2006 issue in that I think
it is crucial that that gets sorted out asap, not least because some
preparations of that conference are obviously being done already - frankly
otherwise we simply wouldn't have a conference in 2006. Since you pointed out
earlier that the votring members of the SC make it inevitable that the ALLC
candidate will be the chair, wouldn't it be just easier to get that out of the
way? I am actually going to Paris in about two weeks time - just before your
schedule for dealing with this business and would appreciate having it over and
done with before then.

And by the way, while Roberts Rules of order are the norm in the States, nobody
in Europe has even ever heard of them. (with the possible exception of the UK)
- They CERTAINLY are not the norm in other EU countries and ALLC is trying to
be multilingual and multicultural, so please don't assume that just because
something is the norm in the US we have to abide by it.

I'd also like to point out that the ALLC COmmittee did NOT vote on the
ADHO/ICHIO/IFDISH issue - and none of us remember doing anything other than
discussing it and coming to the conclusion that it needs further thought. SO
where you got the idea that we've voted on it I don't know.

We did decide though that from the ALLC point of view we feel that we're having
enough trouble sorting out things between the ACH and us that we do not want to
mix in the Canadian organisation into this at this point. Thus you will find
that the ALLC members of the steering committee will take that view at
present.

I STILL feel your timetable of one week per thing is too tight and will probably
just lead to the ALLC feeling its being pushed into things - leaving a bad
feeling all around.

I didn't intend to sound so negative, but I am rather frustrated that nothing
has been done for a long time and then suddenly everything has to be done under
great stress, as if the world was going to collapse around us.

The bottom line to me is that we have a good publication and the ALLC is happy
to pay the ACH a fair share of the income - there has never been any doubt
about that. We have a good conference and we want to keep that going - so for
goodness sakes let's get that sorted out first. And finally, I'd hate to have
to feel that I must recommend that all kinds of protocols NOT be accepted by
the ALLC simply because we've had to rush through them and not had time to
discuss amongst ourselves (ie the ALLC) what we feel about them. While I
appreciate the ACH wants this sorted out, the ALLC has still not gone through
all the papers as a COmmittee and many members simply lack information.

So much for now,

Lisa Lena

Quoting John Unsworth <unsworth_at_uiuc.edu>:

>
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Laszlo Hunyadi wrote:
>
> > Three very brief remarks:
> >
> > (1) I clearly remember that in our conference call on March 15 Harold
> > repeatedly said he could commit himself to one name only as ALLC's
> > proposal for the person to chair the 2006 conference. There was no
> > objection to it then. I suppose he was following the Glasgow decision
> > of the Executive Committee of ALLC. As representative of ALLC here, I
> > have to follow it, too.
>
> I would much prefer to hold off on discussing this question until we
> arrive at it, on the schedule I sent out over the weekend. Now is the
> time to be discussing the governance protocol.
>
> > (2) This steering committee has not accepted the "Robert's Rules" (by
> > the way, I do not know its status of acceptance elsewhere).
>
> It is the most widely used and generally accepted set of rules for
> conducting meetings. In the absence of specific bylaws governing
> questions such as voting, it is generally what has been used, for about
> 100 years, to decide such questions.
>
> > There was a proposal by a voting member (John) for the "three out of
> > five" rule for the future as accepting the spirit of the objection by
> > another voting member (Laszlo) and it also received a backing by a
> > non-voting member (Lorna). Why should we not proceed along these
> > latter lines (of course, if other voting members also accept it)?
>
> One of our four voting members has still not surfaced in this
> discussion, and another did not express a vote until well after the
> deadline for voting had passed. I am happy to recommend bylaws in the
> governance protocol that stipulate such a rule for the future, but all
> evidence indicates that if we proceed according to such rules at
> present, we are not going to decide even one of the remaining questions
> before the conference. The consequences of inaction are more dire, at
> this point, than my ALLC colleagues seem to realize, so I'm sure that I
> must seem rather overwrought to you, but please believe me: we must
> decide these questions before the annual meeting. As I've said before,
> if voting members vote, the question of the Robert's rule vs. the
> proposed bylaw rule will be moot. Could we PLEASE, therefore, begin
> discussing the question before us, namely the governance protocol, and
> STOP debating the method of voting?
>
> > I am sure voting activity should be encouraged in every possible way
> > rather than step backwards and again accept the logical possibility
> > that a single vote (cast) will constitute enough to pass a vote
>
> When your total number of voting members is four, all the numbers
> involved are small. This is precisely why the method I am using is
> necessary, though: two abstentions can effectively halt the process,
> and we have seen already that two abstentions are indeed not only
> possible, but have happened.
>
> So, in my next email I will restate my summary of what seem to me to be
> the major issues with the governance protocol, and then let us proceed
> to discuss that item, please. We are scheduled to vote on it a week
> from Wednesday.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> adhoc mailing list
> adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
>

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Tue Apr 19 2005 - 05:00:39 EDT