[MEI-L] future MEI Board

Fri Jul 11 13:53:15 CEST 2014

Ok, neither 7 nor 8 is completely satisfactory.  Just a stab in the dark.  :-)

With 6 members, the chairman can cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie.  I'd prefer not to place this responsibility in the hands of institutional representatives.  That would give them a much larger role than just an advisory one.

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
________________________________________
From: Byrd,  Donald A. [donbyrd at indiana.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:45 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative; Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] future MEI Board

I'll bet Christine's concern about having 6 voting members was simply
because of the chances of a tie vote. Unfortunately, one of the
integers between 6 and 9 is a prime, making staggered terms awkward,
and the other is even, making tie votes more likely. Note that an odd
number of people doesn't make ties impossible, since someone might
abstain or be unable to vote for some reason! -- but it does make them
less likely.

How about allowing institutional representatives to cast tie-breaking
votes? I believe the U.S. Senate works in a similar way -- the
presiding officer, normally the Vice president can cast a tie-breaking
vote.

--Don

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:45:06 +0000, "Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)"
<pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Christine, everyone,
>
> I can see that there are good reasons why institutional
> representatives should only have an advisory function, so I'm with
> you on that one.  I can even see how institutional reps could be
> elected, but I think the institution should have the ability to
> select its rep by whatever process it feels is appropriate.
>
> I also understand the Board may need to resort to voting on
> particular issues.  As I read them, the by-laws as currently written
> allow the Board to organize itself as it sees fit, including the
> institution of polling or voting, but if others think that should be
> explicitly stated, I won't object.  But, I don't see what these
> points have to do with the number of Board members.  When there are 6
> elected Board members, institutional reps can still have an advisory
> function and "regular" Board members can still vote when necessary.
>
> Is there a concern that 6 elected members can't provide proper
> representation for the community?  Or is there a desire to increase
> the number of members in order to create more "leadership" positions
> that could, for instance, make it easier for one to get funding for
> MEI-related activities?
>
> As we've heard from Don, who has some experience in similar matters,
> too large a governing body can be cumbersome.  On the matter of
> representation, I trust the community to elect whomever it feels can
> best represent it.  I don't believe we should assign board positions
> to "technical" and "non-technical" categories.  I don't want to
> discourage participation, of course, but the Board must have a finite
> number of members -- not everyone can be on it.  BUT, *everyone* can
> stand for election.
>
> In the interest of compromise, is there a number between 6 and 9,
> closer to 6 than 9,  :-)  that can be made to work with staggered
> terms?  I'd happily support that option.
>
> --
> p.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mei-l [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of
>> Christine Siegert
>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:38 AM
>> To: Music Encoding Initiative
>> Cc: Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)
>> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] future MEI Board
>>
>> I also agree that voting might be necessary sometimes and that the
>> insitutional representatives should only have an advisory function (they can
>> at the same time, be elected, of course). Therefore, I would prefer 9
>> members instead of 6.
>> All the best,
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Christine Siegert
>> Universität der Künste Berlin
>> Fakultät Musik, Musikwissenschaft
>> Fasanenstraße 1B
>> D-10623 Berlin
>>
>> Tel.: +49 (0)30 3185 2318
>> siegert at udk-berlin.de
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> From: Laurent Pugin
>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:46 AM
>> To: Music Encoding Initiative
>> Cc: Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)
>> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] future MEI Board
>>
>> I also agree with Don that for point 1 we need a voting option (just
>> in case). For the same reason, I think that for point 2 we need to
>> make clear that institution representatives will be non voting
>> members. I can foresee that decisions will be taken by consensus, but
>> again, this has to be in place just in case.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Byrd,  Donald A. <donbyrd at indiana.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > On point 1, aiming for consensus is great, but surely voting will be
>> > necessary on occasion, so I think an odd number is preferable.
>> >
>> > On point 2, I have no opinion.
>> >
>> > On point 3, I think 6 elected representatives plus institution-appointed
>> > representatives is _plenty_ large! ISMIR is a fairly similar organization
>> > to
>> > I think what we're talking about. I was on the ISMIR Steering Committee
>> > until about 2008, with 8 or 9 members, I forget exactly, and that was
>> > already a bit cumbersome. And Perry's point about travel $$ makes sense.
>> >
>> > --Don
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:26:34 +0000, "Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)"
>> > <pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Benni, everyone,
>> >>
>> >> On point 1 -- I have no preference since the normal modus operandi of
>> >> the Board should be to arrive at decisions by consensus, not by
>> >> voting.
>> >>
>> >> Regarding point 2 -- Again, I have no preference, but the role of the
>> >> host institution representative should be spelled out.  Since
>> >> decisions should be made by consensus, I hesitate to say that the
>> >> host institution rep. should be a voting member.  I prefer something
>> >> like -- "The host institution representative has the same rights in
>> >> the decision-making process of the Board as other members."
>> >>
>> >> On point 3 -- I do have a preference for 6 elected members plus host
>> >> institution-appointed representatives.  I think a 6-member Board can
>> >> be more efficient.  Also, if we ever do get to the point of having
>> >> resources to do so, reimbursing 6 people's travel expenses is
>> >> cheaper.  :-)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> p.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: mei-l [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of
>> >>> Benjamin Wolff Bohl
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:16 AM
>> >>> To: Music Encoding Initiative
>> >>> Subject: [MEI-L] future MEI Board
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear MEI-L::isteners,
>> >>> the current proposal or MEI Community Organization isn't exactly clear
>> >>> about how many members the future Board will have. This is due to the
>> >>> fact that the discussion in Charlottesville wasn't totally explicit
>> >>> about it.
>> >>> At the moment there are three main issues that I would like to forward
>> >>> to the community:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) odd or even
>> >>> In general do you prefer an odd or even number of voting board
>> members?
>> >>>
>> >>> 2) Host Institution representative
>> >>> In addition to any number of Board members elected from and by the
>> >>> community, the proposal grants a seat to one member of every host
>> >>> institution, designated by the respective institution. At the moment the
>> >>> Academy will be the only Host Institution (Please be aware that this is
>> >>> not about Institutional Membership and an institution can only have
>> this
>> >>> role in MEI on individual agreements with the Board).
>> >>> The question connected to this is whether this designated member of
>> the
>> >>> Board should have equal rights concerning any decision making process
>> of
>> >>> the board, e.g. the right to vote in such decisions or have advisory
>> >>> role only?
>> >>>
>> >>> 3) Number of elected Board members & terms
>> >>> How many elected members should the Board have, and how long
>> should
>> >>> their terms be?
>> >>> In general we decided on staggered/overlapping terms in order to have
>> a
>> >>> number of Board members be elected every year. The two proposed
>> models
>> >>> are:
>> >>> a) 9 elected members serving for three years each, 3 members will be
>> >>> elected each year
>> >>> b) 6 elected members serving either for 2 or 3 years each, resulting in
>> >>> 3 or 2 members being elected each year
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd be very happy to hear community opinions on this!
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> ***********************************************************
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> mei-l mailing list
>> >>> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>> >>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>

--
Donald Byrd
Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellow
Adjunct Associate Professor of Informatics
Visiting Scientist, Research Technologies
Indiana University Bloomington