Like James, I've no wish to anticipate the publication of the Board 
meeting's minutes but I think it would be appropriate to report that 
no-one at the meeting visibly dissented from this view. It was agreed 
however that we wouldn't enact any major business at this meeting, given 
that none of the newly elected members was able to attend.

I think we also agreed that the minutes from this meeting ( unlike 
preceding ones) would be made publicly available. Or maybe I'm just 
saying that because I hope it's true.

On 20/10/11 01:47, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> My apologies for misinterpreting your message. You *did* say "voted for", rather than "argued for" which in my mind has an official air to it, and since I knew there was a board meeting, it didn't seem completely impossible that you all had simply gone and made the change. Hence my question.
>
> In any case, please don't take my message as anything other than a gentle nudge from a concerned bystander.
>
> But the question still stands: should we expect the status quo ante to remain? Or will there be change?
>
> All the best,
> Hugh
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:24PM, James Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Hugh,
>>
>> 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)." http://blogs.oucs.ox.ac.uk/jamesc/2011/09/21/tei-consortium/
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Hugh
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev
>> Oxford University Computing Services
>> University of Oxford