[MEI-L] Proposals MEI Strategy Development Group
Joachim Veit
veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
Thu Apr 10 22:25:19 CEST 2014
Dear Benjamin,
thanks a lot for summing up part of the discussion!
Without voting for A or B at the moment, only a few remarks concerning
Institutional membership interspersed in your text:
Hoping that the discussion continues,
Joachim
Am 10.04.14 12:40, schrieb Benjamin Wolff Bohl:
> Dear all,
> thanks for starting discussion on the proposals!
>
> For some short replies and digest of the comments in the googleDoc:
>
> The Guidelines definitely are the most important product of MEI,
> together with the schema. An it sounds wise not to overload the
> production of these documents with organizational / bureaucratic
> matters. I think this is something everybody should keep in mind ;-)
>
> Institutional Membership seems to have a lot of potential discussion.
> her e are some questions to help us get clear what MEI wants:
> - 1) A general question that could be raised in this context is
> whether the idea of Institutional Membership should be an issue not
> tied to a specific model but of general interest for MEI and thus any
> future model of its organization?
>
> - 2) Designating three levels of Institutional Membership with
> respective increase of fees should result in more than just a label.
> This only motivates to support with the lowest membership and even if
> wanted it might get hard to argue to spend more money if it doesn't
> bring more benefits.
>
> - 3) Should Institutional Members (of any level or just highest level)
> have a seat in the Board? Should these be allowed the right to vote or not
> I think the danger you describe in the following point 4 is an
> important argument against seats in the Board. The system of buying
> votes or seats is extremely un-democratic. We should accept that an
> Institutional Member has one vote as each individual member and try to
> find other means of "award" for such fine institutions who are willing
> to promote the MEI community. So I very much sympathize with your
> proposal under 5) (which is the "TEI" one).
We should also avoid - if there will be an individual fee on the long
term - that institutions spending, e.g., 500 $ see this as paying for
their 200 individual members. That's no problem at the moment at all -
but perspectively. So I plea for treating individual and institutional
members alike - at least concerning their rights to vote or being elected.
> - 4) If institutional Memberships allow for a voting seat in the
> Board, how avoid the risk of buying control over MEI?
>
> - 5) Why not tie the fees for Institutional Membership to the size of
> the institution an d their annual budget?
>
>
>> Model C, while innovative, feels like it's imposing a structure to
>> interest groups that should just happen naturally. I see this as
>> being ultimately counterproductive, partly because it's kind of
>> predictable that one or two groups will always have the bigger cut,
>> simply because of what MEI offers.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with "such things". The general statements
> concerning Interest Groups impose the structure to them. The idea of
> Model C in this context is that in contrary to having exclusively
> Board members form the groups with the "bigger cut" it allows smaller
> groups to participate in the Board, not least because the ratios for
> sending group members to the Board is in favour of smaller groups.
Imagine we have 15 interest groups (whow, fine!!....) - all should send
a member in the Board? How should such a big board operate?
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Benjamin
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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:bohl at edirom.de
>
> http://www.freischuetz-digital.de
> ***********************************************************
> Am 09.04.2014 01:57, schrieb Raffaele Viglianti:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Many thanks to the Strategy Development Group - you all clearly put a
>> lot of effort into producing a well organized and clear document.
>>
>> I left a few specific comments on the document itself. 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. The idea of
>> institutional sponsorship from Model A is good, though it might need
>> some clearer bylaws. Model C, while innovative, feels like it's
>> imposing a structure to interest groups that should just happen
>> naturally. I see this as being ultimately counterproductive, partly
>> because it's kind of predictable that one or two groups will always
>> have the bigger cut, simply because of what MEI offers.
>>
>> Thanks again for all you work!
>> Raff
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Sigfrid Lundberg <slu at kb.dk
>> <mailto:slu at kb.dk>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Benjamin and all other contributors to the strategy document!
>>
>> Thanks for good work!
>>
>> I have to say that I'm leaning towards the A alternative, or
>> something close to it. The reason for that is that the MEI
>> guidelines is our most important product (and I suppose that it
>> will be so for years to come). Hence I think that the technical
>> committee is needed as the maintainer of that document and as an
>> entity that assumes the responsibility for its development. I'm
>> not sure the board should have that responsibility. There are
>> people who have the capacities needed for work both in a board
>> and being a guideline editor, but perhaps not simultaneously?
>>
>> A gambit for a discussion from between an XML query and a transform.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Sigfrid
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Fra: mei-l [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>> <mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de>] på vegne af
>> Benjamin Wolff Bohl [bohl at edirom.de <mailto:bohl at edirom.de>]
>> Sendt: 2. april 2014 15:13
>> Til: Music Encoding Initiative
>> Emne: [MEI-L] Proposals MEI Strategy Development Group
>>
>> Dear MEI-L,
>>
>> after Music Encoding Conference 2013 MEI Strategy Development Group
>> (MEI-Strat) was formed in order to elaborate proposals for future
>> organization of MEI community. During the past months we have been
>> working in order to start discussion on potential future forms of
>> organizing MEI community.
>>
>> Now with the Music Encoding Conference 2014 being just around the
>> corner
>> it seems appropriate to start discussion on this subject matter,
>> as we
>> hope to distil a common community consensus on what might be new and
>> openly communicated structures of MEI. Furthermore we intend to
>> prepare
>> presenations and a basis for further discussion for this year's
>> conference (May 20-23 in Charlottesville, VA).
>>
>> ==A short disclaimer==
>> Please be aware that anything in the proposal is indicative and
>> subject
>> to discussion, be it the individual proposals in general, or specific
>> details, e.g. the length of terms for elected members.
>>
>> ==Words of thank==
>> We thank the MEI community for the possibility to work on this
>> subject
>> matter, and for the confidence in our group!
>> I personally like to thank all collaborators for their time,
>> effort and
>> good thoughts all of which were provided on expense of their private
>> free time!
>>
>> ==The Discussion==
>> The document containing our proposals is openly available online via
>> google-Drive (no login required). Although modification of the
>> text is
>> not possible comments may be inserted by anyone with the link.
>> Feel free
>> to provide your identity when commenting or just submit anonymously.
>> Of course it is not intended to discuss all raised topics in the
>> document. A lively discussion on MEI-L would be warmly welcome so
>> bring
>> anything of interest to discussion there!
>>
>> ==The Document==
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IBvbKFM1fo4lwyFnIYnneUhfwTj4DLrAmtCSUfqzeQs/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> With many thanks to all collaborators,
>> for the MEI Strategy Development Group,
>> Benajmin W. Bohl
>> - Keeper
>>
>> --
>> ***********************************************************
>> Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar Detmold/Paderborn
>> BMBF-Projekt "Freischütz Digital"
>> Benjamin Wolff Bohl
>> Gartenstraße 20
>> D--32756 Detmold
>>
>> Tel. +49 (0) 5231 / 975-669
>> <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%205231%20%2F%20975-669>
>> Fax: +49 (0) 5231 / 975-668
>> <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%205231%20%2F%20975-668>
>> E-Mail: bohl at edirom.de <mailto:bohl at edirom.de>
>>
>> http://www.freischuetz-digital.de
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mei-l mailing list
>> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de <mailto:mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mei-l mailing list
>> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de <mailto:mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mei-l mailing list
>> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
-------------- n?chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20140410/c62be207/attachment.html>
-------------- n?chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit Bin?rdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname : veit.vcf
Dateityp : text/x-vcard
Dateigr??e : 364 bytes
Beschreibung: nicht verf?gbar
URL : <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20140410/c62be207/attachment.vcf>
More information about the mei-l
mailing list