[MEI-L] Proposals MEI Strategy Development Group

Thu Apr 10 23:17:27 CEST 2014

One thing that can be tricky about institutional memberships at various
levels in the US is that schools within an institution have budgets that
are set independently.  Here at Stanford the Medical, Law, and Business
Schools are heavily endowed, but the School of Humanities and Sciences
(might be Arts and Sciences elsewhere) has very little loose change in its
budget.  For MEI this is not a matter to be concerned with for now, but
when MusicXML was first associated with WWW3, there was no way to comment
on official proposals without an institutional affiliation (minimum
subscription: $10,000).

Stanford as a university did not have a membership.  MEI should for now
look to music libraries and possibly to other academic organizations for
memberships. Usually in the US institutional membership provides an
institution with a journal that is published three or four times a year,
an online forum, and other benefits. The typical institutional membership
rate is 20%-30% higher than the individual rate.

Eleanor

Eleanor Selfridge-Field
Consulting Professor, Music (and, by courtesy, Symbolic Systems)
Braun Music Center #129
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-3076, USA
http://www.stanford.edu/~esfield/  +1/ 650 725-9242

From: mei-l
[mailto:mei-l-bounces+esfield=stanford.edu at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On
Behalf Of Benjamin Wolff Bohl
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:41 AM
To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Proposals MEI Strategy Development Group

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

- 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.

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> 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] på vegne af
Benjamin Wolff Bohl [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/1IBvbKFM1fo4lwyFnIYnneUhfwTj4DLrAmtCSUf
qzeQs/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

http://www.freischuetz-digital.de
***********************************************************

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
mei-l mailing list
mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20140410/5768832f/attachment.html>