<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>I've looked over the various models proposed on the share document. I think that the "A" model looks to be the most likely to succeed. The Board cannot be too large (as others have noted), or it will not be nimble enough to act upon recommendations that emerge from the various Interest Groups and other ways we have of expressing our views on the project.<br>
<br></div>Two things that are still unclear to me: <br><br></div>1. What reporting system to we imagine from the Board to the membership at large? We note that Interest Groups ought to send their own reports and suggestions to the Board in advance of meetings. What system will we have in place for the Board to offer public reactions to these proposals, or otherwise maintain an archive of near- and long-term projects or policies?<br>
<br></div>2. How will we in practice elect the at large Board members? By some process of nomination, followed by elections? In my experience, groups need some process of assembling a relatively small list of candidates from who to choose (assuming we want some sort of majority-wins voting). For example: we have a first round of nominations in search of 3 or 4 candidates for each position to be filled. Then we hold instant-run-off elections to select the winners from this short list. (Perhaps this is too early for such detail, but it's worth thinking ahead to what the process might look like, since achieving the sorts of representation we eventually decide upon will in turn depend upon having the right process through which candidates are proposed and elected.)<br>
<br></div>Richard<br><div><div><div><br>how would we conduct these elections in the case of the at large membership of the board?<br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Giuliano Di Bacco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gdibacco@indiana.edu" target="_blank">gdibacco@indiana.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br>
Also from my personal perspective:<br>
1- I always assumed that the current Council would remain in place
until the future Board is installed;<br>
2- the conference is approaching, and I see this as a precious
opportunity for both informal and formal discussion. So (at this
point) I would wait until the end of it to draw any conclusion.
Then the proposals could be fine-tuned and re-submitted for final
discussion and approval to the list. As for Benjamin's excellent
idea, we could attach a resumé of all pros/cons that people will
have expressed so far (I am sure that those members of the
Strat-group who will be in Charlottesville would be happy to
collect more opinions--certainly I would). <br>
Best,<br>
Giuliano<br>
<br>
<br>
Benjamin Wolff Bohl wrote on 08/05/2014 11:01:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Dear Johannes,<br>
thanks for your questions, tah I'll answer below from my
personal perspective:<br>
<br>
Am 06.05.2014 21:18, schrieb Johannes Kepper:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear all,
thanks to those that did respond to the strategy group's proposals. For those who didn't – it's not too late, please give some feedback and help us to shape the future MEI. You can find the document with the proposals at
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IBvbKFM1fo4lwyFnIYnneUhfwTj4DLrAmtCSUfqzeQs/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IBvbKFM1fo4lwyFnIYnneUhfwTj4DLrAmtCSUfqzeQs/edit?usp=sharing</a>
Since we're approaching the conference, I'd like to ask some questions.
- All proposals don't make a statement about the current MEI Council. Was this an intentional decision? If I remember correctly, there was some concern about this group last year. I know that it won't be easy to find a solution for this one, but I think we should address it in one way or the other…</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a great hint, I guess we just missed to articulate
anything about this. From my part I always was assuming, that any
new Board would replace the "current Council" but others might
have another opinion?! <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>- At first glance, it seems that the first proposal triggered most feedback. Would it be a correct observation that most in the community prefer this over the other two _in principle_, but still would like to clarify some details about it? Please don't get me wrong – I don't want to get rid of the other two proposals, I just want to get a sense of where we are drifting. If you think my impression is wrong (which is perfectly possible), please disagree – either here on MEI-L or in the document linked above. If you like the other proposals (or aspects of them), please speak up – the sooner the better. Please remember that the google document gives the possibility of anonymous feedback, if you prefer. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Getting a feeling if general tendencies towards one of the
proposals would be indeed very interesting! Nevertheless the
comment frequency is not to be taken as general tendency towards
one or the other... for example Raffaele shared a quite good
argument for Model B over this list:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> In general, I prefer Model B: it's lean
and reflects well the size of the community. It also keeps the
focus on the Guidelines and releases, which I agree with Sigfrid
are the most important product of this community. I feel model B
will allows us to move forward without having to jump through
too many administrative hoops, while tasking people with
essential admin responsibilities. </blockquote>
<br>
Maybe we should try come up with a general pros-and-cons list for
each Model?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Benjamin<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>
Thanks again for your interest and participation.
Best,
Johannes
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<font face="Calibri"> </font></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mei-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de">mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l" target="_blank">https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Richard Freedman<br>John C. Whitehead Professor of Music<br>Haverford College<br>Haverford, PA 19041<br><br>610-896-1007<br>610-896-4902 (fax)<br><br><a href="http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/rfreedma" target="_blank">http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/rfreedma</a><br>
</div>