[MEI-L] MEI organization

Fri May 9 15:16:06 CEST 2014

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.

Two things that are still unclear to me:

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?

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.)

Richard

how would we conduct these elections in the case of the at large membership
of the board?

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Giuliano Di Bacco <gdibacco at indiana.edu>wrote:

>
> Also from my personal perspective:
> 1- I always assumed that the current Council would remain in place until
> the future Board is installed;
> 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).
> Best,
> Giuliano
>
>
> Benjamin Wolff Bohl wrote on 08/05/2014 11:01:
>
> Dear Johannes,
> thanks for your questions, tah I'll answer below from my personal
> perspective:
>
> Am 06.05.2014 21:18, schrieb Johannes Kepper:
>
> 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
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IBvbKFM1fo4lwyFnIYnneUhfwTj4DLrAmtCSUfqzeQs/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 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…
>
>
> 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?!
>
>  - 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.
>
>
> 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:
>
>  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.
>
>
> Maybe we should try come up with a general pros-and-cons list for each
> Model?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Benjamin
>
>
> Thanks again for your interest and participation.
> Best,
> Johannes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>

-- 
Richard Freedman
John C. Whitehead Professor of Music
Haverford College
Haverford, PA 19041

610-896-1007
610-896-4902 (fax)

http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/rfreedma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20140509/1323a8b2/attachment.html>