On 20/10/11 09:11, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2011, at 08:45, O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
>
>>
>> The TEI was done a deep disservice by people who knew better
>> but who wanted to score short-term points regardless of the
>> long term implications. Twitter is the first draft of
>> propaganda, not history, and the people who yell the loudest
>> are not necessarily telling the most truth.
>>
>
> I can't understand this paragraph in the midst of the stuff
> about subscribers and so on.  Do you want to elaborate? you
> sound rather bitter….

I'm also not sure I understand this, people will communicate 
through whatever means when they hear something like a Chair 
suddenly resigning has happened. I also think it is wrong to 
blame particular media. People also used Google+ and Facebook, 
and indeed the TEI-L mailing list (where to my mind more detailed 
and significant questions were asked).

With Hugh's original question, the discussion was concerning 
increasing new blood on TEI Council, where we both agreed (I 
believe) that electoral reform was probably necessary to widen 
the pool of voters and thus create a more regular influx of new 
people.

Given the answers of the candidates and continuing members of TEI 
Board and TEI Technical Council in answer to John Unsworth's 
question:

"Should the TEI have individual members (paying or not) who can 
vote to elect people to the board and/or council?"

were almost unanimously 'Yes' (though some did have modifications 
on the process), I would find it very unusual if the Board did 
not implement some form of voting for individual members after 
the new members have officially started their terms on 
2012-01-01.  There may be discussion or variation in proposals 
for how this should take place (MartinM's suggestion, for example 
that individual subscribers get to vote for a single Board post), 
or what level of membership (e.g. should there be a basic 
non-voting membership and a higher voting membership rate?) or 
similar will all have to be considered.

I know that Sebastian and myself both argue against the idea that 
the higher-level memberships somehow deserve more of a vote than 
an individual subscriber.  University of Oxford does not pay its 
$5000 (or provide its in-kind services) in order to obtain a vote.

In answering this I decided to go back and look exactly at what 
people said in answer to John's question and append my summary of 
that below in case people are interested. If I've mis-represented 
anyone that is my own error, apologies.

===
How people answered (asterisks indicating those elected):

Board Candidates:
Marjorie Burghart*: Yes.
Hugh Cayless: Yes.
Laura Mandell*: Yes.
Martin Mueller*: (Yes, but voting for one post)
Elena Pierazzo*: Yes.
Peter Robinson: Yes (in form of learned society)


Council Candidates:
Brett Barney*: Yes.
Gabriel Bodard*: Yes.
Kevin Hawkins*: Probably.
Martin Holmes*: Yes. (But proportional)
Doug Reside: Yes.
Paul Schaffner*: Yes (For Council, unsure about Board)
Rebecca Welzenbach*: Yes.

Continuing Board Members:
Lou Burnard: Yes.
Arianna Ciula: (No response received)
Marin Dacos: (No response received)
John Walsh: Yes.

Continuing Council Members:
Piotr Bański: Yes.
James Cummings: Yes.
Sebastian Rahtz: Yes.
Stuart Yeates: Yes.
===

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford