TEI: TEI Board Minutes: Google Hangout 07 June 2016

TEI Board Minutes: Google Hangout 07 June 2016

In attendance:

  • Hugh Cayless (HC)
  • Michelle Dalmau (MD)
  • Kevin Hawkins (KH)
  • Martin Mueller (MM)
  • Kathryn Tomasek (KT)
  • John Unsworth (JU)
  • Pip Wilcox (PW)

Apologies: Marjorie Burghart (MB), due to technical problems with G+ hangout

Action Items

  • Martin (MM) to confirm space and number of papers with local members of program committee.
  • Kevin (KH) to draft an RFP for phase one of website changes, circulate to Board for approval, then post call for contractor to handle first phase.
  • Michelle (MD) will work on a list of operational/admin needs with Board’s input for John to use in the bid process.


  • Via email before the meeting. Raised the TEIJ copyeditor rate: $30/hr USD. Confirmed by Treasurer (John Unsworth–JU) at Board meeting.
  • Webmaster (Kevin Hawkins) will move ahead with Phase One migration of web content to WordPress.


  • Meeting Procedures and Other Announcements
  • Raised the JTEI copyeditor rate: $30/hr USD; need confirmation from Treasurer
  • Review April 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: Approve over email by 9 June 2016.
  • Directors and Officers Liability Renewal (JU)
  • 2016 Members’ Meeting and Conference Update (MM)
  • Web site Design and Development: Plan for the New TEI Web site (KH)
  • Migrate to WordPress in phases? (KH)
  • Division of Labor: Board, Council, TEI Community, Contractor: Need to finalize
  • Review Website_Redesign_for_tei-c.org; Begin Recommendations for Web site Structure and Organization (PW)
  • Proposed Revisions to Bylaws
  • Final questions or comments?
  • Initial vetting by TEI community; see Elena’s email in June 2013 for proposed changes to the Bylaws?
  • Prepare revisions for online voting? see Elena’s email referenced above
  • Revisit alternative governance structures



The meeting was quorate.

1.1 Over email, it was decided that we should raise the TEIJ copyeditor rate to $30/hr USD. The availability of funds for this purpose was confirmed by the Treasurer (JU), who noted that the budget is $5,000.00, rounded.

1.2 Review April 2016 Board Meeting Minutes.

Minutes from the April 2016 Board meeting are ready for review. These were tabled, to be approved over email by 9 June 2016. (No Board meeting was held in May.)


JU reported that this insurance coverage has been part of practice since the TEI-C incorporated, mostly as protection regarding employment practice and general liability, in case liability should be an obstacle to anyone’s willingness to serve on the Board. The cost is roughly $1,800.00/year. Hearing no objections, it was decided that we will continue this coverage for the year.


MM reported that reviewers were asked to grade papers, with two reviewers per paper and categories: ‘yes’, ‘probably yes’ ‘probably not’, ‘not’. Results were: fifteen papers with ‘yes’, ‘yes’ votes, fifteen with ‘yes’, ‘probably yes’ votes; six papers with ‘probably yes’, ‘probably yes’ votes; one paper with two ‘probably not’ votes; two papers need a third reader. A total of thirty to thirty-six (30-36) papers, three workshops, twenty posters will be slotted for the program. Martin is discussing space and the wishes of the local members of the program committee with Claudia Resch. Space arrangements would also impact the number of papers; need to confirm.

Action: Martin toconfirm space and number of papers with local members of program committee.

There was some discussion regarding the event with Council that was discussed over email. Martin noted that the most important plenary event will involve Council, and could be called ‘Whither TEI?’ What remains is to work out details of the format and so forth. The Council Plenary is separate from questions about sessions and space and number of papers. Other keynotes remain to be determined, depending on discussions with the Program Committee concerning the papers received and how they affect the overall theme of the meeting.

Whether or not there will be a late-breaking call for papers depends on the local arrangements committee.

The website is availabale: http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/en/tei2016.

Participants have been promised notification of acceptance promised by June 17. The process is running; on schedule.

4.0 WEBSITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT: Plan for the New TEI Web site (KH)

4.1 Migrate to WordPress in phases? (KH)

Kevin has been working out steps to move forward on the website redesign and development. The emerging consensus is that we should do this in two phases. In the first, we will replicate a version of the existing website in WordPress without revision of the information architecture, content, or design. The goal here is to end our reliance on an obsolete content management system. (As with the current CMS, integration of the Guidelines with the rest of the website is meant to be seamless.) The second phase will focus on the more difficult, time-consuming work of creating new information architecture and design.

There was considerable discussion about both phases, including the possibility of engaging same outside contractor for both. Most were in favor of contracting the first phase separately from the first, perhaps on an hourly basis. It was suggested that we contract the first phase to a contractor who might be able to do the second as well, but contract only for the first phase as a method of quality control. Nick and Kevin can point the contractor in the correct directions, but Kevin preferred to pay for phase 1 [and 2] as a whole rather than by the hour. It was agreed that it would certainly be fine to make clear within the TEI community that WordPress migration is the first of multiple steps. John noted that it is important to agree that the person overseeing the work [i.e., Kevin] is clearly empowered to make decisions.

There was also discussion regarding the ends of the terms of both Kevin and Nick. Kevin would like to step down as webmaster; he sees the new web structure as a natural transition point. He is happy to serve in an advisory role, but he thinks a new webmaster should have full responsibility.

With regard to costs, we have been using as a rough estimate $20,000 for the whole website redesign project. When we come to phase two, we may need to reconsider the likely overall cost and make decisions accordingly.

Action: Kevin to draft RFP for phase 1 of the TEI-C web site migration, circulate to Board for approval, then post call for contractor to handle first phase of web content migration to WordPress.

John noted that some of work we are discussing under website redesign is the sort of thing that could be contracted out. We should not be expecting that work be done by volunteers. We are not using our time optimally for the community if the Board is spending time on the business of managing membership, memberships issues, accountants, and so forth. Choosing to do things on a shoestring is not something we should be doing. As a nonprofit, we should be paying for basic business skills, management oversight, continuity. John recommends bundling responsibilities, making a limited term commitment with a management service, at least as a trial. He sees this as part of the growth and maturation of the organization.

Discussion included a reference to a previous conversation with Marjorie regarding possibilities of partnering with other organizations since there is more to the digital world than the TEI now. It was agreed that it is best to separate the operational duties from the more strategic questions about allying with other organizations. Michelle notes that the documentation we have been creating will assist with our contracting out operational duties to a management company.

John had previously sought a bid and received it in April 2015, but it does not reflect current discussion. He recommends that we go back for broader discussion, be honest with ourselves about operational areas where we need staffing. A useful outcome for today would be a list of what we need. John is happy to seek bids or quotes but is unwilling to go to the time and trouble if the outcome will be that the board that says no, it costs too much. We noted the possibility of three-year trial.

Discussion returned to the immediate question of the website. Should Kevin proceed with contracting for moving web content to WordPress? The documents regarding the website revision will be useful for John as he seeks bids. Decision: It was decided that Kevin should move ahead with drafting an RFP for Phase One of website migration (replication in WordPress).

Action: Michelle will work on a list of e-services for John to use in the bid process.

4.1 Propose a new model, modify existing model, or maintain status quo?

Action Item: Since we seem to have consensus that the local hosts should appoint the Program Chair, MD will contact the local hosts in Vienna with a message to that effect.


5.1 We will return our attention to the by-laws after our work on contracting service areas is complete.

The meeting was adjourned at noon EST.

Minutes taken and submitted by Kathryn Tomasek.