Re: [adhoc] vote today, please

OK, here's my two cents' worth...

As Harold said, in principle, this is a document that has the changes the ALLC
suggested in it. It also has section 6 about calling a vote, which is fine, as
far as I can see, with the exception that I still object to the time scale
given - we are all busy and if you time your call for a vote right, some of us
have to read these documents at 10 pm (having started the working day at 4 am)
and frankly, I don't think that's very fair - give us a bit more time.

However, there are a few things that bother me.

The first is the clause about leaving the alliance. It's fine if someone has
been in for a year or two, but what about if someone wants to leave after 10 or
20 years? the cumulative income paid to that organization over its whole
membership would really not be something we could afford to pay 10% of
necessarily, now would it ? I think this bears a bit of thinking.

The next issue I have is with section 7, from which you have deleted bits. I
remember this being discussed in Loch Lomond. The question really is about the
remit of the publications committee chair and the conference committee chair.
Take, for example, the conference committee chair: the wording as it stood
originally made it clear that the conference committee with its three members
was a kind of standing committee that looked after protocols and solicited
proposals for conferences. It seemed to us at the time that that was quite
apart from the programme committee of each conference, which, as previously,
would always be run by the programme chair of that individual conference. The
way it has been written now, ie with no specifications, leaves it completely
open as to what it actually is that that committee does. The same goes for the
publications committee - what is the area that is the responsibility of the
editor of the print journal and what is the area that falls under the
responsibility of the publications committee?? You may say that this is to be
agreed at some point, but it's not good enough for me, I want it spelt out in
this document.

There's a typo in section 7: will is spelt with two l's, not one.

So, in sum I think what I am going to say to the ALLC is that I see no
irremediable or fatal flaws in this document, but I do think there are some
points that still need some consideration before we approve it. SO I would not
approve of it as it stands, but think that the changes that it needs can easily
be achieved in VIctoria and feel confident that it could be approved of there.

Lisa Lena

Quoting John Unsworth <unsworth_at_uiuc.edu>:

> ADHO Steering Committee members:
>
> Today (April 27) is the end of the declared voting period for the
> governance protocol, in the ADHO steering committee. There has not
> been a great deal of discussion on this document, but that may be
> because the ALLC members already discussed it in December and the
> current revision represents their recommended revisions. Be that as it
> may, voting members of the steering committee are now asked to vote yes
> or no on the following proposition:
>
> The ADHO Steering Committee recommends the current state of the
> governance protocol to the executive bodies of ACH and ALLC, for
> approval as the document that will guide the future operation of ADHO
> and its steering committee.
>
> The governance protocol, as revised by ALLC and in our discussion, is at
>
> http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/ifdish_2.html
>
> The protocol has mechanisms to allow for future modification, so you
> need not believe that the document is perfected in order to recommend
> it to your executive body, but you should be able to affirm that, as it
> stands, the document represents a good-faith effort to establish rules
> for governance of ADHO, and you should also believe that the document,
> as it stands, is free of irremediable or fatal flaws. If the
> proposition is approved, the Executive bodies will be asked to review
> the current state of the governance protocol and certify it as the
> operational mandate for ADHO, at or before their next annual general
> meetings, in Victoria.
>
> As in our previous vote, the question will be decided by a majority of
> votes cast: I understand that this is a controversial method, but I
> remind committee members that if they vote, there will be no grounds
> for the methodological controversy.
>
> I vote in favor of the proposition.
>
> 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 Wed Apr 27 2005 - 16:15:39 EDT