[Euro-board] Paris Board meeting and documents

[William Drake]

Hi

On 6/7/08 12:25 AM, "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> wrote:

> Hi Vittorio,
> 
>  Vittorio Bertola wrote Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:31:35 +0200
>>> (...) try to identify online
>>> the precise points on which votes will be necessary so I can give my input
>>> electronically?
>> 
>> me too :)

Again, to be clear, I think it's fine to have a meeting before to help
prepare.  But I think it would be better to have a formal, for the record,
vote taking meeting after the GA, when all board members coming to Paris
will be present and able to vote, and all boardies will be able to act in
light of the GA.  We've never had a F2F formal board meeting.  From an
institution/cooperation building standpoint, I think it's best to do it when
all hands are on deck.
 
> Relevant Board agenda points, some even simply formal, to me are:
> *the Board's report is a draft from the Chair so far and I would like having
> it discussed and approved by Board members to submit it to the GA as
> "the Board's report" (sent yesterday)

My recollection is that when you circulated the draft previously people were
basically content, so we could agree online to send that to the GA in
advance of Paris rather than wait. It doesn't cover all that much ground
anyway, since there wasn't much to be covered.  But once we've had the GA
we'll have a much better idea what Euralo will really be doing over the next
year, substantively, and another report reflecting post-GA agreement on this
and other points would seem useful.

> *the same would be appropriate for EURALO's working budget...
> *the working programme and projects 2008-09 AND
> *the review of the by-laws regarding individual users participation and
> membership at EURALO etc.

> The last point mentioned needs a solid input by the Board or Chair or a
> kind of concise Resolution about how we will organise and manage this in
> practical terms -- otherwise we will have, according to my experiences with
> previous pre-EURALO reunions ;-), a never-ending discussion.

I don't see why formal board votes on these matters could not be done better
after the GA rather than before.  Use the GA to consult and make ALS'
 part of the process with meaningful input opportunities. The board
shouldn't appear disjoint from the members, acting on a different
rhythm. 
 
> What we need to know from the Staff before Paris, conc. TOP 10, is:
> -The exact results from the Board Online voting from May 07 which was
> set up by Nick and actually who was voted in for a one- or a two-years-term?

Forthcoming apparently.

> -Who needs to to be re-elected in fact (according to the by-laws, the Chairs
> are set for two years)?

This only makes sense if going forward all posts on the board are for two.

> -Who goes for a 2nd term (Karen won't because she is NomCom now
> -- what about others?)  I only received one declaration of interest for
> the Board so far ...

If there is a clear agreement, not subject to ad hoc reinterpretations, that
non-ALS people may stand for board slots and will be treated the same as
other board members in all respects, then I could be willing to stand again.
If not then not.  Intertwined with this is the question of board possible
board shrinkage, which I think is a bit of a red herring but whatever.
 
Best,

Bill