Voting on the conference protocol is logically prior to voting on the
conference chair, hence the order of business I circulated. The
changes to the governance and conference protocols, at this point, are
those emanating from the ALLC (in the case of the governance protocol)
or suggested by Harold (in the case of the conference protocol), so I
don't understand Lisa Lena's assertion that the ALLC hasn't had a
chance to discuss these documents, or that ALLC members 'simply lack
information.' On the contrary, given that the changes we are voting on
are those recommended by the ALLC, it seems reasonable to believe that
we might dispatch these two issues in less than four weeks (the
timetable allows two weeks, not one, between votes), and arrive at the
issue of conference chair sooner rather than later: I would certainly
be happy to see that happen. If the College of Cardinals can choose a
pope in two days, we can certainly decide these questions in two weeks.
And while it may seem an odd formalism on my part, I do think it is
important both symbolically and procedurally that the steering
committee observe the instructions it has been under since Gothenburg,
to operate according to the draft conference protocol until it is
approved in final form. As I've pointed out, the draft conference
protocol clearly states that the steering committee, not the host
organization, chooses the program chair. Imagine yourself on the other
side of this one, if this happened to be an ACH year, and the ACH
executive just decided to ignore agreed-upon procedures and announced a
unilateral choice of chair: I don't imagine such an action would be
received with equanimity by the ALLC. The outcome may be exactly the
same if the steering committee votes, but the outcome is not the only
thing that matters: precedent also matters, especially in the early
stages of a new endeavor.
About Robert's Rules, it's not my intention to foist US normativity on
the committee: I raised this in response to the notion that the voting
method I announced and we followed in our first vote was somehow
unreasonable, unwonted, or unheard of. Robert's Rules evolved
(actually starting in 1876) in response to situations just like the one
we have been in, and there is some wisdom in the experience they
represent.
As for COCH-COSH, once again, I defer discussion of that question until
it arises on the schedule. As an aside, though, I point out that
members of this committee seem doggedly determined to spend the time
allotted for discussing the current order of business in discussing all
other items on the agenda, and I predict that this will lead to
complaints that we have not had enough time to discuss the governance
protocol, when the vote is called on April 27th. In fact, we have had
this before us for a week now, and none of the ALLC representatives on
the steering committee have engaged this topic in any substantive way.
Once again, then, I urge the voting members to read the document at
http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/adhoframe.html
engage the substance of what's there, and cease bringing up other
topics out of order.
Finally, in answer to Lisa Lena's question about where I got my
information on the ALLC position on naming, I got it from Harold, as I
got my information about the ACH position from Lorna. Harold reported
to me in early April that all ALLC executives who had expressed an
opinion favored ADHO. I note this for the record, and not to reopen
the question of naming: that question has been decided.
John
_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Tue Apr 19 2005 - 12:22:54 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 12:22:55 EDT