I think that is a bit of a mis-characterization of my tweet. I was in no
way saying that anything was a done deal, simply that it seemed the
majority of those elected/standing were in favour of electoral reform
(of some sort). This tweet originated from a discussion during the TEI
Members' Meeting at which John Unsworth was roughly summing up the way
that various candidates (and standing members) had voted (or answered)
his questions. The responses to which, as you know, were given with the
biographical statements. My tweet meant, in answer to yours about
getting new blood onto TEI Board/Council, that I think that the majority
of people elected (and standing members) are in favour of some type of
reform of the way the TEI voting system works.
Indeed when I answered John's questions on my own blog where I said that
I would favour:
"All members at every single level, especially including individual
subscribers should have a single vote. Institutions become Partners to
support the TEI Consortium and tend to view it as participation in a
standardization body, I doubt many care strongly about their privileged
position of having a vote at election time. One vote for one member
(whether individual, Partner, or otherwise)."
During the Members' Meeting it was raised that TEI Partners might feel
somehow aggrieved that they only got one vote for a much larger
contribution if individual members also got the same vote. I stated at
the time that Oxford does not pay its membership or contribute its
in-kind services for the right to a vote. I assume the same is probably
true of other Partners and larger projects, who are more interested in
contributing to the TEI rather than winning the right to a single vote
in elections. (But perhaps I'm wrong about that.) Rather than refer to
my tweet, why not refer to the candidate/standing statements? That would
be a more accurate summary of where people stand.
The board indeed discussed this the following day at its meeting, but it
is not my place to comment on that before the minutes are released.
On 19/10/11 22:49, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> And I should have actually phrased that as a question :-)
> So what is the state of the electoral situation in TEI-C?
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:01PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>> So I have a question: James Cummings implied in a tweet
>> (http://twitter.com/#!/jamescummings/status/125240383037911040) that
>> it was a done deal that individual subscribers would get to vote in
>> the future. I'd have thought it was rather more complicated than that,
>> but would be pleased to learn otherwise.
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev
Oxford University Computing Services
University of Oxford