The meeting was certified at 9:20 PST, with the following members present: Syd Bauman (SB), Lou Burnard (LB), Julia Flanders (JF), John Lavagnino (JL), Daniel O’Donnell (DO), Sebastian Rahtz (SR), Chris Ruotolo (CR), John Unsworth (JU), and Matt Zimmerman (MZ). Daniel Pitti (DP) and Gautier Poupeau (GP) arrived shortly after. Incoming Board member Ray Siemens (RS) sat in on portions of the meeting.
TEI Tight: At the Members’ Meeting, Perry Trolard met with David Seaman and SB for a project update. DS will pay for Perry to go to the upcoming DLF meeting in Boston, so that he can attend the TEI in Libraries working group meeting.
TEI website: MZ noted that several meeting attendees and travel survey respondents had commented on the need for improvements to the current website. Further discussion was postponed until later in the meeting.
Role of Executive Director: VL, MZ, and JF have worked out an understanding of the ED role and its responsibilities. However, JF noted that we have no formal documentation about it, and that the old standard procedures document from the Bergen days isn’t up to date.
Dec. 1Update the standard procedures document.
Role of Secretary: MZ and CR have concluded that we are in compliance with the bylaws. It was suggested that all TEI-related legal and financial documents should be assembled in one place, and that Virginia is the logical spot given that the Secretary and Honorary Treasurer are both there.
Spring 2007CR will contact the Board members and ask them to send her all TEI legal and financial documents, along with a brief inventory.
TEI’s own history is of increasing interest to its members. The Babbage Institute (U. Minnesota) might be a possible site for a TEI research archive. A web space for research on the TEI should be reconsidered when the new website is up.
Donations and CaféPress: MZ will investigate before he leaves as Chair.
Dec. 31Look into setting up a donation system and a CaféPress store
“P5-ready” logo: MZ will follow up on this.
Dec. 31Check with James Cummings about P5-ready logo
Outstanding items will be covered in their agenda slots.
DP stated that due to professional changes, he may need to step down as
Honorary Treasurer in 2007. A new Treasurer will need to be appointed. LB
proposed that this role be outsourced. Cost is unknown. SB suggested that
some bookkeepers are willing to do this work pro-bono for non-profit
RS and JF volunteered to serve. RS will chair the committee, and one other member will be invited, probably from the Council. There was some discussion of nominating committee procedures, and the optimal number of candidates per open slot. RS noted that this is also an issue for other organizations, like ACH. DO said that the original list of nominees was heavily British and Canadian, and that the committee had to seek out nominees from other locations to get better international representation. GP noted that nominees had only two weeks to decide to stand for election and submit a bio, and that they need more time to decide and prepare. JF will change the standard procedures document to indicate that the nominations process should begin in May.
SR and DO expressed interest in serving as Chair. The Board voted via paper ballot, and DO was elected by a vote of 5-4. The new appointment took effect at the end of the meeting.
JF volunteered to continue serving as Vice-chair, and was reappointed. CR volunteered to continue serving as Secretary, and was reappointed.
SB’s term as editor is up December 31st. He is interested in another appointment, and JF indicated that Brown is willing to continue to contribute 2/3 of his TEI time. LB is under increasing pressure from Oxford given that the TEI reimbursement for his work as editor is nowhere near the actual cost. JF has the same concern for Brown. Possible future options were discussed: discontinuing reimbursement of the editors and making it explicitly a volunteer role; adding more editors to function as a team and share the burden; eliminating the editor role altogether and relying on the Council to function as an editorial board; paying $30K to one editor instead of $15K to two, or paying $30K to the head of the Council to act as an editor.
JF noted that the two editors have historically represented the split geographical focus of the Consortium, but JU pointed out that the Council now represents that diversity. LB distinguished between the different roles of TEI Editor — doing the actual editing of the text of the Guidelines, and acting as a public figurehead; the latter role can perhaps be filled by the Council chair. DO suggested that we give ourselves a year to revisit interrelated issues of Editors, Council, fundraising, etc.
MZ moved that we reappoint SB for one year. LB again expressed doubt that the current funding will be adequate for 2007. JU suggested using our slight income balance to further compensate Oxford for LB’s time, and DO suggested making it a one-time payment rather than creating a salary differential. The Board agreed to a one-time payment to Oxford, tentatively $8K. Motion was then made for SB to be reappointed for one year under the same arrangement as last year, and carried unanimously.
Discussion of host commitments for the coming year. In-kind contribution from Brown and Oxford is more than satisfied by their contribution of the editors’ time. JF noted that Brown’s hosting commitment is now split between the Women Writers Project and the Center for Digital Initiatives. Virginia’s hosting is currently split between the Library and IATH; CR will approach other units at Virginia to solicit more in-kind participation. GP stated that Nancy will conduct the same work as in 2006, but will add the training component that fell through last year; TEI use is on the rise in France and it seems like a good time to organize training and identify the appropriate community for it.
The Board discussed of the possibility of hosting a Members’ Meeting outside of North America or Europe, and reviewed the results of the recent web survey on this subject. The survey respondents were primarily from Europe and NA, and would prefer to have the meeting in those places.
Discussion of whether the MM serves the current members, or some other function (e.g. recruitment). TEI Day in Kyoto was a good example of a way to have events in other parts of the world, but perhaps not as the Members’ Meeting. The Board should pick up the TEI Day idea and ask colleagues in Taipei or NZ if they’d like to host such an event. GP felt that the MM is geared toward insiders, and not a great way to introduce newcomers to the TEI; he mentioned the Oxford workshop as another good example of a different type of meeting for dissemination and recruiting. DO suggested that the MM could be expanded to another day, into a full academic program.
The Board discussed the legal requirements for the business meeting. JU noted that the bylaws require the membership to meet once per year, with the Board meeting scheduled as closely as possible. A quorum of 1/3 of the membership must attend. If we were to accept the bid from Taiwan or NZ, we would have to make sure we got our quorum via proxy. It might be possible to hold the MM electronically and then hold other TEI events in different parts of the world, attended by different Board members; however, the advantage of the current MM is that it brings people from different geographical regions together.
The official bids for the 2007 MM came from New Zealand, Maryland, and
Taipei. Last-minute efforts to secure a European bid fell through. The Board
decided to vote on the bids at hand and Maryland’s bid was chosen, with only
SR dissenting. The ED will contact Susan Schreibman, the local organizer at
Maryland, to let her know. LB nominated SR to be head of the program
committee, and he agreed to serve. The Board also decided to contact the
Taipei organizers about hosting a significant TEI event there, perhaps a
meeting celebrating the 20th anniversary of the TEI.
DP reviewed the budget report from 2006 . The change to the staff allocation, with the extra $5K going to Brown, was not reflected in the 2006 expenses. Member, subscriber, and host fees for 2006 are still outstanding. Account reconciliation: $61K. Minor corrections to the budget report were noted and will be made to the online reports. The projected surplus for 2006 is approximately $8K; this would be a good number to have on the report.
The £10K from ALLC for internationalization work will be transferred into the TEI coffers. JF said it would be best to disperse the funds to institutions, which could further distribute the funds to individuals. An extra $8K of “P5 push money” will go to Oxford. Discussion of whether the surplus in the Council budget will roll over to Council in 2007; DP thinks that Christian Wittern has already encumbered it. JF asked if we should budget some money for the proposed meeting in Taipei, but no real surplus is available, so this will have to be addressed by a fundraising plan.
DP suggested that we reimburse travel expenses on a per diem, rather than
based on receipts; this will simplify paperwork and put a cap on meal
expenses. Syd volunteered to look at the travel reimbursement guidelines
published by the State Department and recommend reimbursement guidelines for
meals based on those.
CR showed a mockup of the new site and asked the Board for feedback. Once the new site is complete it will run side by side with the current site for a brief transition period before the old site is disabled. Several Board members expressed concern about the new site supporting persistent URLs. Because the redesign involves a reorganization of content, some URLs are likely to change; however, URLs will be preserved for top level sections and essential documents, and other URLs will be redirected wherever possible. LB noted that the Vault and Applications sections are missing from website mockup.
Shayne Brandon, Amit Kumar, and CR will meet in November to finish setting up the backend of the new site. Once that work is complete, CR will develop a schedule for the rollout. MZ asked about the reliability of the current site and the recent downtime. DP said that there are hardware problems on the jefferson server; a memory upgrade is scheduled for early November which may help resolve the problem.
DO suggested that we spend a month canvassing ourselves about the
interrelated questions that the TEI will face in the coming years
(recruiting and fundraising strategies, the role of the editors, the role of
host institutions, etc.) and brainstorm some ideas, to be discussed in a
mid-December conference call specifically for this purpose. We should expect
to have this “medium-term planning” complete by this time next year.
JF mentioned the NEH-sponsored Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants, which provide $30K and might support TEI tool development or related work. The next NEH deadline is April 2007.
A new fundraising committee was discussed. JL and JF volunteered for the
committee, and RS and Werner Wegstein were suggested as additional members.
This membership would provide representation from the US, the UK, Canada and
Europe. The fundraising committee will canvas national granting agencies to see
what’s available in the coming year. The possibilities of grant funding in
Asia were discussed; it would be worth paying someone (CW?) to work with
a contact in China on this.
DO suggested that we promote grant activity prominently on the main website,
perhaps on the front page. We could offer to provide grantwriting
assistance, encourage grant seekers to collaborate with us, and recruit more
volunteers to assist with grants. JF volunteered to work with CR on this.
DO mentioned the ITST research grant from SSHRC, a one-year, $50K grant supporting outreach and communication among scholars. He (and RS?) will investigate.
JF mentioned the HCI-Book group grant proposal; they’re applying for SSHRC funding of about $500K Canadian/year for five years. JF was asked to sit in as the TEI “face” & suggested that the grant application include membership for all participating institutions.
JF suggested seeking funding for the development of more pre-canned TEI customizations for particular project types (like the MEP, for example). We could get funding from disciplinary organizations for this type of work.
JU mentioned TEI Tight as a recruiting strategy. If keyboarding vendors agree to a discounted price for TEI members, it could be a powerful incentive to join. We can begin approaching vendors as soon as the spec is complete.
The next regular Board meeting will be a conference call around the second week of January. The medium-term planning discussion will happen sooner, around mid-December
DP will add RS to the Board and Council mailing lists immediately and remember to remove MZ on Jan 1.
SB will make appropriate updates to the tei-meet mailing list.
SB will create a schema for the new website.
The meeting adjourned at 16:35 PST.