TEI: Minutes of the TEI-C Board Meeting, Sofia, Bulgaria, 30 October 2005

Licensed under

Minutes taken by John Unsworth

16 September 2007 Converted to P5 November 2, 2005

Chris RuotoloFirst draft

TEI-C Board of Directors meeting, 30 Oct 2005MinutesMeeting held at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, SofiaJohn Unsworth

  • Present: Syd Bauman (SB), Lou Burnard (LB), Julia Flanders (JF), John Lavagnino (JL), Veronika Lux (VL), Daniel O’Donnell (DOD), Daniel Pitti (DP), Sebastian Rahtz (SR), Chris Ruotolo (CR), John Unsworth (JMU), Matt Zimmerman (MZ). Regrets received from Patrick Durusau.

  • JF declares willingness to be vice-chair, willingness to be replaced as chair. MZ declares willingness to serve as chair, other candidates also discussed.

    Vote1: LB proposes that we recognize Julia’s service and thank her, and nominates Matt as Chair, Julia as vice-chair. Seconded, passed by acclamation.

    Vote2: Chris Ruotolo nominated as secretary by Julia, seconded and passed unanimously.

    Role of the chair will be to make sure that information emanating from the Board is up to date on the web. Discussion of the role of the secretary in the bylaws, followed by affirmation of that description for the moment, with a recommendation to discuss this further online, and consider revising this language. Executive Director’s role also needs to be specified in the bylaws: this is an item for email discussion.

    Nov. 1Initiate discussion of the language in the bylaws that describes the secretary’s duties Nov. 1Initiate discussion of language for the bylaws that describe the role of the executive director

  • Vote3: Approved.

    • Correct “Augiust” to August under action item, under Budget
    • Correct “would indeed by” to “would indeed be” under TEI Tight
    • Correct “Matt D” to Matt G in the action item under TEI Tight

    Action items: first four completed (though budget item not completed by August).

    Membership management item ongoing, expected completion by January 1; subordinate action item on Julia, Daniel, Veronica to make sure by November 30th that material migrated from unstructured to structured fields in the new database has been migrated correctly, and to make sure that member and invoicing information is up to date in the new database.

    TEI Tight action item. Very little activity reported on this front. Chris Ruotolo spoke to Matt before coming to the meeting, and little has happened. DLF sponsorship? is this ongoing? DLF meeting occurs in a couple of week. Possibly it’s time to relaunch the whole process from where things are now, consider it anew as a membership benefit, use the CDL DTD? Virginia’s? JMU described the possible ‘brokerage’ service as a member benefit, either offered by a host institution, or by a member organization offering this service in exchange for membership. Several people observed that offering this service was distinct, if subsequent, to deciding on one (or more?) restricted subsets. Daniel P. argued for reconciling these DTDs across large institutions.

    ??Coordinate a discussion among institutions who have developed such a restricted TEI subset in library digitization, see if they perceive a benefit in harmonizing these, and to see if they’re interested in participating in a brokerage (two separate questions). Will work with Matt Gibson and Syd on this.

  • MZ recommended including someone from the Council (current or past member) should serve on the committee, in addition to the two board members. Board should appoint the chair? LB recommends geographic diversity. JF recommends that a slate should be assembled by July 1. Vote4: Nominating committee: Daniel O’Donnell (chair) and Lou Burnard will serve from the Board. Matthew Driscoll recommended as a Council representative, James Cummings alternate. Agreed.

  • Review of 2005 budget and budget narrative, 2006 budget projections.

    Expenses: Daniel P. noted that “projected” budget in 2005 budget is not exactly what was previously projected for 2005, because of changes made during the last board meeting to the budget presented at that board meeting. Last year when we looked at Bergen spreadsheets, the board requested certain changes in the way the budget was presented (track in-kind contributions separately, for example). $10K allocated in “projected” for workgroups is reallocated to members meeting and council meeting.

    Income: Daniel P. notes that in spite of losing a few members we have also gained a few more, and made headway overall. Slight dip in individual subscribers noted. Recent receipts not distributed by category (noted with an asterisk in the “Current” column) can’t be assigned to a category simply because recent bank statements haven’t yet been reconciled with invoice numbers to identify the class of member. Question from Syd B. about odd numbers in the “Current” column–lots of things explain that (bank fees for currency conversion, grants that got the fee wrong, Div3 discounts, etc. etc.). “Other” under “Other” is found money from 2004.

    Account reconciliation: This is the actual bank balance for TEI. Projected end of year balance is current balance, plus projected income, minus projected expenses. Daniel O. asked whether 2004 expenses carried forward represent 2004 budget projections; Daniel P. responded that these are actual spending, some of which occurred across the end of the 2004 fiscal year. JF notes that the $33K balance expected to be carried forward from 2005 to 2006 is an important cushion for the TEI, given that we have to pay cash, in effect, out of current accounts. So if income lags behind spending, this is what we rely on to bridge the gap. Daniel O. notes that we seem to be ahead of expenses by about $17K/year, and since it’s happened twice in a row, we should perhaps investigate putting some of this in short-term notes that bear some interest. . . .

    Jan. 1Discuss with Bank of America how we might invest the balance forward, so that it earns interest.

    Projected Budget 2006: Sebastian recommended that we increase the Council budget to $24K, in light of the fact that this year we’ll be asking them to do more and try to get P5 out the door. Recommendation accepted, Sebastian will communicate the news to Christian Wittern.

    $2500 in income this year from P4 Guidelines, received too late to be in these budget. We should budget for printing of P5, in 2007.

    Jan. 1Find out from UVa Press what stock remains of P4 books, and find out what’s been the financial history of P4 books.

    JMU raised the question of auditing fees ($3K) and noted grumbling at this fee at the members’ meeting on this, and asked whether it would be worth investigating whether less expensive services were available. Daniel O. noted that it’s difficult to get auditors to take on small accounts, and volunteered to look into availability of other auditors.

    Nov. 30Communicate to Daniel P. the information that KPMG will be looking for at tax time.

    Host commitments for the coming year: in a previous board meeting, we discussed the desirability of declaring how they would make good on their commitment to in-kind contributions, so that we’re all on the same page as to what those commitments will be, and we agree that these are good resources to have.

    • Brown: will commit .25 FTE for Syd. Brown’s hosting is now shared by the library at Brown as well, under a new librarian, and the library may become more involved, at least $5K unreimbursed.
    • Virginia: will commit for web-hosting and web-site development, at least $5K unreimbursed.
    • Oxford: Lou and Syd will provide the technical infrastructure and workflow tools for P4 and P5, at least $5K unreimbursed.
    • Nancy: Membership invoices, membership renewal, member information management (in the database); promotion of the TEI in francophone world, at least $5K unreimbursed.

    Tracking of Membership and Membership database: Veronika asks whether the member history information needs to be in the database by the end of November. JF agrees that it isn’t pressing, but should be in there.

    Jan. 1Consult with Tone Merete to find out how far back we actually have host information, and report back.

    Veronika also notes that although the natural evolution of the database is toward an automated billing system, it may not be desirable, because the communication with members may need to be more customized. JU recommended that it be used to generate mailing labels and invoices, but not letters.

  • JF reports on how this round went, and notes further improvements that would be desirable. MZ notes that the budget for the members’ meeting seems arbitrary, and it would be helpful for the organizer of the next meeting what the rules are (what can be covered by budget for members’ meeting) and what we generally expect to spend, on what kinds of things. We should discuss the rationale for the meeting fee, and means to make sure that people at related events are invited to the TEI members’ meeting. Call for hosting should also make it clear whether and at what cost local participation should be available.

    Dec. 15Work with Matt, Syd, and Veronika a meeting protocol. Draft for review by December 15.

    Feedback on the 2005 meeting: Ten minutes of fame and the poster sessions were a big success. Questions about whether the mix was right, and whether standard papers are likely to appeal to all comers. It would be worth adding to the protocol for the meeting a reminder to speakers that one should not speak to an insider audience, thereby alienating those who don’t feel they are insiders. The objective of the program should be intellectually accessible to all comers. More spotaneous presentations in the 10-minutes of fame might be better–or more formal: either short formal talks, or open mike. Protocol should include an evaluation form. Protocol should also stipulate that non-members are welcome throughout. We could also add to the SIG portion of the program a set of topical workshops (Nancy-style), with designated coordinators and (in some cases) designated participants, on hot topics.

    Matt Z acclaimed and applauded for having done a bang-up job on the 2005 meeting.

    2006 Meeting: 2006 meeting should recruit participation from west coast member institutions. Grant submitted with Ray Siemens and Peter Liddel, to SSHRC, for about $20K in meeting expenses (for speakers, for example). $5K in institutional support also committed. A recruiting opportunity for Canada and the west coast. Program committee and meeting organizer should be the same person, in 2006 (conference co-chair). Ray will be the local organizer, and we could designate local organizer conference co-chair. So we just need to find a second person from the Board, with a cc to the Chair of the Board of the TEI on all conference-related communication (a listserv/mailing list). Julia volunteers to act as conference co-chair.

    Vote5: MZ moves Julia be Board representative/conference co-chair for the 2006 Members’ Meeting; seconded, passed unanimously.

    Nov. 15Set up a standing email list at Brown for members’ meeting organizers.

  • Chris R.: progress made to date on cosmetic redesign and reorganization. A group met in Victoria in June to map out a schematic for organization of the top two levels; a local committee in Virginia is looking at redesign, working with the IATH web design person. This could be complete by the end of November.

    Nov. 30Demo a new design for the TEI web site.

    Not yet addressed: how to transition from Oxford being the authoritative source to Virginia housing the site; whether to continue using Perforce to do content-management on the web site; how will it be backed up or mirrored; who will need to manage content on the site; what are the core purposes of the TEI web site and whom does it serve (SIGS? any old user? Wiki users?)? Should we consolidate services on a single server?

    At present, web site’s managed out of Perforce at Oxford; wiki is at Oxford; P5 is maintained at Sourceforge; Roma is running on another server; listservs are run and archived at Brown (and others elsewhere).

    • We need to have a system where multiple people, but a limited and approved number of people, need to be able to modify authoritative TEI information on the web site (for example, the secretary, the chair, the editors, chairs of workgroups). More than one author implies a CMS. (Is perforce the right one?)
    • Do we need redundancy and resilience? Yes, but we need the simplest way to achieve this, from the user’s point of view and from the point of view of maintenance.
    • Do we need the site to be authored in TEI? Yes.
    • Can this working group provide the basis for defining a level of service to be expected from this server? Yes, please do.

    Working group on this to include: Chris (chair), Sebastian, and John U., with additional talent to be requisitioned as needed.

    Jan. 1Some choices to be presented by the working group to the board, for discussion at the next board conference call.

  • Funding and how to allocate it; role of the editors after P5; community-specific customizations. Also, Lou’s term expires in 2005, and we would need to reappoint him now, or someone else.

    JF: proposes we extend Lou’s term by 2 years, in order to ensure continuity in the current situation.

    Lou’s happy to continue for another 2 years. Sebastian: is there a good reason to have more than one editor? Yes, according to many.

    Vote6: MZ moves the reapointment of Lou for two years; JF seconds, passed unanimously.

    Sebastian’s work on internationalization of Roma (the software that transforms an ODD file to a schema and its documentation) demonstrates the importance of this piece of TEI infrastructure. Should the Editorial Infrastructuure Developer be remunerated explicitly in the budget? Yes, if only to recognize that it’s an important technical function.

    JF moves that for FY 2006, out of the $35K allocated half-and-half to editorial work, we should reallocate as follows: $15K to editor at Brown, $15K to editor at Oxford, and $5K to editorial infrastructure developer (Sebastian, at Oxford). Seconded by MZ, agreed unanimously.

  • Subcommittee on recruiting (item 1 should include making it easier to figure out how to become a member, once you’re persuaded to do so; regional recruiting strategies; etc.).

    Vote7: JF moves that we establish a recruiting subcommittee: John L. seconds, passed unanimously. JF will serve, Veronika will chair, John L. will serve.

    Jan. 1Produce a recruiting strategy for the coming year, for discussion at the next Board conference call.

    Subcommittee on Grants and Development (including grant-writing (tei-tight? internationalization?) and point of contact for advice on how to write TEI membership into grant proposals, plus work on sponsorship, and even commercial items, like TEI books, TEI single, TEI t-shirts)?

    Vote8: MZ moves that we create a subcommittee on Grants and Development; Chris R. seconds, passed unanimously. Matt Z. will serve; Daniel O. will chair, and invite James Cummings and Laurent, possibly other Europeans.

    Jan. 1Produce an interim fund-raising strategy for the coming year, for discussion at the next Board conference call.

    Specific fundraising/recruiting opportunities recently: Milena Dobreva introduced Julia to Victor Navarova (sp?), who wanted to talk about using the TEI as in interchange format among several Russian manuscript projects. They’d like to find funding for a recruiting event that would introduce the Russian participants to the TEI, and vice versa, and include some money for consulting, membership, etc.. Kevin Hawkins has expressed interest in this as well. So, this is the sort of thing that the fundraising subcommittee might work on, with Kevin and Milena, say, as PIs on the actual grant.

  • Review ToDo items. Conference call? Nov. 5Schedule mid-January conference call, as soon as we all get back.