<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear all,<br>
many thanks for the lively discussion! Please excuse my late
answer, as preparations for MusEC2014 keep me quite busy.<br>
BTW: there will be a "_blank" poster on MusEC2014 for developing
and discussing ideas, I'd be happy to meet any of you there ;-)<br>
Sorry this is quite long but splitting into several mails would
not have eased the discussion I guess... feel free to state on
single passages.<br>
<br>
1.) Reporting System of the Board<br>
@Richard: Thanks for bringing up this very crucial issue.<br>
According to the white paper the Board should have regular
meetings every three months, publish an agenda online prior to the
meeting and minutes in a timely manner afterwards. Is there
anything to add to this for proper transparency? Maybe the
publication should not simply be made somewhere online, but on
music-encoding.org and announced via MEI-L!<br>
<br>
2.) Electoral Process<br>
@Richard: thanks again!<br>
This indeed is a very important (also concerning all other
organizational decisions), as selecting one or the other electoral
process might have great impact on individual chances. Having a
first deadline for entering nominations seems plausible as
otherwise we would have to rank the whole community :-P As far as
I'm concerned I'd welcome the option of self-nomination, as this
gives room for personal commitment. When a closed list of
candidates is available a voting should take place. Concerning the
fact, that anybody on MEI-L would have the right to vote there
should be no minimum voter turnout, as this could immobilise MEI.<br>
Andrew suggested a ranked ballot voting in a comment in the white
paper and I supported this idea. This is quite similar to Richards
suggested "instant runoff".<br>
Essentially each voter will rank any number of candidates on his
ballot, the one(s) with the fewest first-place-votes will be
eliminated, and their votes will be redistributed according to the
respective second-place-votes on the ballots; this process will be
reiterated until the number of candidates matches the number of
places.<br>
For details see: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting</a><br>
and: <a href="https://opavote.appspot.com/results/100002/0">https://opavote.appspot.com/results/100002/0</a><br>
<br>
3.) Bylaws<br>
We should definitely work out proper bylaws. Some time ago Perry
provided me with a nice example from the Forum for Classics,
Libraries, and Scholarly Communication (<a
href="http://www.classicslibrarians.org/about/bylaws/">http://www.classicslibrarians.org/about/bylaws/</a>).
These are quite compact and could serve as a first starting point
for MEI bylaws. MEI Strategy Development Group may certainly help
in drafting these bylaws but in the end someone will have to
accept them / pass them / vote for them I guess?<br>
<br>
4.) Current Council and General Assembly<br>
I think I agree with everything that has been said concerning the
Current Council and the idea of a General Assembly that has been
said in this thread so far. Just to sum up:<br>
- The Current Council remains in place as long as the new
organizational structures have not been implemented! <br>
- After implementing and populating the new Board (e.g. by
elections) the Current Council will be dissolved, as participation
of former Council Members can take place in the General Assembly.<br>
- The General Assembly will be held yearly (be it in connection
with a specific MEI conference or in connection with other
potentially interesting events/conferences, e.g. as pre-conference)<br>
<br>
5.) Implementation procedure<br>
As decided last year the Current Council is still in place and we
implemented the "Interim Steering Group" (Group A) with Perry
Roland, Johannes Kepper, and Gabriele Buschmeier (and Kurt
Gärtner) to (amongst others) negotiate the formal collaboration
possibilities with the Mainz Academy. MEI Strategy Development
Group (Group B) was to elaborate some proposals.<br>
If we as community now develop our ideas of a proper form of
organizing ourselves I think:<br>
first: MEI Strategy Group should update the current porposals to
match all the feedback<br>
second: call for another round of feedback while all the above
groups try to elaborate a first draft of bylaws<br>
third: publish first draft of bylaws<br>
fourth: Group A & B call for nominations, conduct elections<br>
fifth: convene the elected members to the Working Group Music
Encoding at the Mainz Academy and dissolve Group A, Group B, and
the Current Council<br>
seventh: call for Interest Groups<br>
eighth: MEI as much as you can ;-)<br>
<br>
Somewhere in this process the first draft of bylaws might be
checked against national law of different countries?<br>
<br>
<br>
Bes wishes,<br>
Benjamin<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">***********************************************************
Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar Detmold/Paderborn
BMBF-Projekt "Freischütz Digital"
Benjamin Wolff Bohl
Gartenstraße 20
D–32756 Detmold
Tel. +49 (0) 5231 / 975-669
Fax: +49 (0) 5231 / 975-668
E-Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bohl@edirom.de">bohl@edirom.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freischuetz-digital.de">http://www.freischuetz-digital.de</a>
***********************************************************</pre>
Am 09.05.2014 15:16, schrieb Richard Freedman:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+zvZGc4Sz-1T7-XVS1cXcWg1VEJUT-u8ir06R+Z4hPLkXZptQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de">mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/rfreedma"
target="_blank">http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/rfreedma</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
mei-l mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de">mei-l@lists.uni-paderborn.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l">https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>