TEI: Minutes for TEI Board Conference Call: 13 May 2008

Licensed under

Original text

, 1600 (BST)Daniel O’Donnell

  • The meeting was called to order with the following people present: Julia Flanders, Daniel O’Donnell (Chair and Minutes), Laurent Romary, Sebastian Rahtz, Ray Siemens, Susan Schreibman
  • Approved. JF asked if discussion of Syd Bauman’s proposal for SIG support could be added to agenda as previously discussed with DPOD.
  • Approved
    • A proposal made by SR regarding recognising the service of long standing and founding members of the TEI was discussed. It was suggested that such recognition would be useful both for the TEI and its members, subscribers, and others, by helping establish the connection between the TEI and those it sends out as emissaries.

      A discussion ensued as to the pros and cons of the proposal. While the merits of identifying long standing supporters and founding members of the organisation was broadly recognised, it was also noted that the potential also existed for slighting the efforts of those who for whatever reason were not awarded such honors.

      The final decision was to find a mechanism that did not rely on arbitrary decisions concerning worth, such as a list of founding officers.

      DPOD was asked to investigate mechanisms and language for such a list.

    • Due to the complexity and late notice of this item, discussion at the board level was deferred.

      DPOD, SS, and LR were asked to consider the proposal in detail and discuss further with Syd Bauman and others as necessary

    • DPOD led discussion of proposal for reorganising the business of the Board. The proposal called for establishing a regular series of quarterly meetings of the board as a whole and an executive consisting of named officers of the board to help members and others prepare items for the board’s consideration. DPOD suggested that this approach would have the advantage of improving the consortium’s efficiency in handling its business and provide those wishing to make proposals to the consortium with a transparent method of bringing their suggestions to the board’s attention.

      Opinions on both aspects of the proposal was mixed, with some members expressing approval for both suggestions, some neither, and some one or the other. Opinion was also mixed as to whether the proposal’s diagnosis of the problem was accurate. The suggestion that the board work on a regular series of quarterly meetings was more widely supported than the idea that it empower a formal executive. There was no support for rewriting the bylaws to reflect the proposed changes at this time.

      The final conclusion was that the proposal was premature for official action.

    • RS discussed the status of the “viral” experiment and the best method of presenting it at the members’ meeting. It was decided that the report could be best presented during the business meeting and, if necessary, as a poster as well.
    • Presented
    • Presented