Print

Print


For the record, I agree with you that the process for appointing and 
dismissing the TEI chair should be completely parallel, and should both 
be a lot more transparent and participatory.

Is there going to be open discussion of proposed changes to the 
bylaws--and if so where? On TEI-L? A new list? Are all of these 
proposals then going to be put on the agenda in Würzburg? I think that 
would go some way to reassuring people that the TEI-C is serious about 
consultation.

Cheers,

Gabby

On 2011-08-25 20:37, John Unsworth wrote:
> I couldn't agree more with the point you make in your message of August
> 23rd, also made by Elena and others: the bylaws need to be changed to be
> more explicit about the proper way of relieving a chair (or indeed, any
> board or council member) of his or her duties, and the bar should be higher,
> with greater participation than a simple majority of the voting members of
> the Board.   The mechanisms here need to be commensurate with those required
> for appointing the person in the first place, though: it would be
> problematic, in my view, if a simple majority of the board could appoint a
> chair, but it took a vote of the Board and the Council to remove a chair, or
> a vote of all TEI members.  So, if we want to raise the bar on dismissal, I
> think we need to raise the bar on appointment as well.  The matter of
> dismissal carries great weight at the moment, but we will want to be careful
> not to fix that in a way that either creates procedural asymmetry or makes
> it more excessively difficult to appoint chairs in the first place.

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/