Proposed Governance Scenarios

February 6, 2018

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This document was prepared by the ADHO Implementation Committee (IC) for the ADHO Steering Committee following the guidance of the ADHO Governance Proposals and other documents. It is a recommendation for how ADHO should be governed through the Constituent Organization Board (COB).

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 This document is a step towards replacing parts of the Governance Protocol with Bylaws and/or Protocols. The idea is that there will be a public consultation through the Constituent Organizations (COs) after which the recommendation will go to the Steering Committee which will review and choose/adapt one of the scenarios below (or send the IC back for more scenarios). Once a scenario has been decided, the IC will assist the Steering Committee in preparing the appropriate documents like bylaws and protocols for the SC and final approval.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 See Appendix A for a glossary of relevant acronyms.

Preamble

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 The proposed scenarios below were developed based on these principles:

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 2
The Mission of ADHO is to provide support for shared activities in the Digital Humanities on behalf of the Constituent Organizations (COs). These can take the form of shared infrastructure (web sites, journals), shared activities (annual conference), or projects that have a defined lifespan.
The members of ADHO are therefore the COs and it is the COs that ADHO serves. ADHO does not serve the members of the COs directly except through the participation of the COs in ADHO’s administrative bodies.
The ADHO structure has to be adapted so it can scale as new, and/or different types of COs join. This means focusing on the efficiencies of shared infrastructure/activities. ADHO should avoid initiating things independently from COs.
The ADHO structure has to be adapted so that membership in an ADHO CO does not depend on either a subscription to Digital Scholarship in the Humanities or the mandatory use of the Oxford University Press site. The COs should have the flexibility to enroll and serve their members as they see fit, while still being able to collaborate through ADHO when they so desire. That said, the institutional subscriptions to DSH are important to the financial health of ADHO so memberships should be encouraged where appropriate.
ADHO should beware of initiating activities that don’t arise from the COs. Its sole purpose is to support COs. Wherever practical, all infrastructure, activities and projects supported should be proposed by, and managed by one or more COs and not by ADHO itself.
The COB decides what are the shared services for support. Proposals for new infrastructure, activities and projects should come to the COB from a CO or the ADHO Executive with at least one CO as a seconder. They should include a discussion of outcomes, a timeline, the use of existing services, and an itemized budget. They should be discussed and voted on by the COB. If there are budgetary implications then the Executive needs to account for the activity in the next budget.
There shall be established a memorandum of agreement between the ADHO Foundation and each Constituent Organization.

Responsibilities of the Constituent Organization Board

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The Constitute Organization Board (COB) responsibilities would include:

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
Set strategic goals
Decide all policy matters
Initiate new activities
Commission reports on matters of potential or current strategic interest
Approve the annual budget
Approve admission of new Constituent Organizations
Approve admission of new Associate Organizations
Approve the creation of new Special Interest Groups
Approve MOAs (Memoranda Of Agreement) that establish formal relationships between ADHO and other organisations including Affiliate Organizations
Appoint the Executive
Monitor the performance of the Executive
Receive reports from the Executive on operational activities. Reports from standing committees and officers would be channelled to the COB via the Executive.
Receive reports from COs on their own activities, and, where applicable on the activities of linked Associate Organizations
Receive reports from Special Interest Groups

Proposals Regarding Membership of the COB

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 2 In light of the principles we propose the following Scenarios for how membership of the COB should be determined.

Scenario 1: One CO, One Vote; Majority Voting Rules

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 6 The Constituent Organisation Board (COB) should be organized via a single voting member per CO. Procedurally, all actions within this model requires a majority of votes to move forward.

Discussion:

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0
The One CO, One Vote model requires consensual decision making as a group of peers. This model requires that each CO representative be committed not just to its CO but also to ADHO.
A One CO, One Vote system encourages parity of authority between smaller, developing COs and those that have larger memberships. This is key if ADHO intends to support the development of new COs in previously untapped communities and geographies as it demonstrates a sense of the importance of developing COs.
This model is premised on institutional subscription funding for ADHO rather than individual membership funding.
Currently there are 7 COs so there would be 7 votes.

Scenario 2: COs + AOs + SIGs, One Vote, Majority Voting Rules

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 9 The Constituent Organization board would be formed with two representatives from each CO regardless of its size as well as one representative each from the Associate Organizations and the Special Interest Groups.

Discussion:

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 3
This COs+AOs+SIGs model encourages broad participation of multiple types of organizations within the ADHO family and they all use the infrastructure. The benefit to this model is that it encourages a multiplicity of voices in discussion while still asking for consensus among the COs.
The negative to this approach is that it can encourage an over-representation by COs who have Associate Organizations.
Additionally, given the growing number of AOs, SIGs, etc. the size of the COB could potentially become unwieldy.
An alternative would be to have 1 representative for all AOs, representatives for each SIG, and the 2 representatives for each CO for a total of 24 votes.
Given the current COB Size: 27 seats, 27 votes: 5 SIGS, 4 AOs, 18 COs

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Note: the Bylaws should be reviewed so that there is more guidance regarding the difference between a CO and an AO. If AOs are the provenance of COs rather than ADHO via its bylaws (see Implementation documentation 4), then this model cannot be selected.

Scenario 3: Range Representation

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 7 The Constituent Organization Board would be formed based on a range representation formula. Membership under 20 is one seat, one vote; Membership between 20-100 merits two seats, two votes; and Membership over 100 merits three seats, three votes. Ranges may be set and/or altered by the COB as COs grow.

Total COB Size: 11 seats, 11 votes

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 EADH: 3 seats, 3 votes

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 ACH: 2 seats, 2 votes

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 AADH: 1 seat, 1 vote

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 CSDH: 2 seats, 2 votes

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 JADH: 1 seat, 1 vote

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Centernet: 2 seats, 2 votes

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Humanistica: 3 seat, 3 votes

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 This is based off June 2017 reports. It includes only non-joint members:

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 EADH : 605 members

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 AIUCD 118

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 DHd 266

¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 DhN 81

¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 EADH 140

¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 ACH: 96 members

¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 AADH: 17 members

¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 CSDH: 63 members

¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 JADH: 8 members

¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 Humanistica: 211 members

¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Centernet: 28 members

¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 4 Joint Members: 188 members

¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Honorary Members: 10 members

Discussion:

¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 3
The merits of the Range Representation model is that it respects the work of COs in growing their own organizations and the importance of historical knowledge without being strictly proportional.
The negative of the proposed model is that it may over-represent established COs to the detriment of smaller associations. It may also lead to a large and unwieldy COB.
These numbers are provisional given the recent addition of Humanistica. It will become increasingly important in this model to have up-to-date information on membership.
We encourage consideration every three years of the ranges being adjusted for scale.

General Discussion Related to Governance Protocols

Quorum

¶ 38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0
A quorum for the COB would be a majority of the voting members. In Scenario 1 a quorum would be 4. It is understood that meetings may not be face-to-face so a quorum will depend on context.

Votes

¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0
Given ADHO’s desire to serve as an umbrella organization that supports common infrastructure, we encourage the use of the consensus model of voting with some mechanism for dissent to be recorded.

CO Constitution

¶ 40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 2
As noted above, there is a need to review the ADHO bylaws and admissions committee documents regarding what constitutes a CO. Following decisions in scenarios selections, the admissions committee of the COB should review all organizational types to ensure they are accounted for. Associate Organization status needs to be clarified as does SIGs.

Role of Non-Voting Representatives

¶ 41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0
Non-voting representatives should be included in COB discussions as appropriate and as decided by the COB or Executive. They may include representatives of AOs, representatives of SIGs, infrastructure leaders (editors, conference organizers), consultants, representatives of committees, or special project managers.

¶ 42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 3

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms

¶ 43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 ADHO: Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations

¶ 44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 AO: Associate Organizations

¶ 45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 CO: Constituent Organizations

¶ 46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 COB: Constituent Organization Board

¶ 47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly journal

¶ 48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 DS: Digital Scholarship journal

¶ 49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 DSH: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities journal

¶ 50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 EADH: European Association for Digital Humanities

¶ 51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 IC: ADHO Implementation Committee

¶ 52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 MoA: Memorandum of Agreement

¶ 53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 SC: ADHO Steering Committee

¶ 54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 SIG: Special Interest Groups

Categories:

Governance Model, Implementation Committee

You can follow any comments on this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments

Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:43 pm

“ADHO should beware of initiating activities that don’t arise from the COs. Its sole purpose is to support COs. Wherever practical, all infrastructure, activities and projects supported should be proposed by, and managed by one or more COs and not by ADHO itself.” I think this is at the heart of what needs to be done at the ADHO level. Implied are issues of funding and mutual understanding. ADHO should collectively and transparently allocate funding for infrastructure to the COs managing it; and, for each piece of infrastructure, whether or not funded monetarily, a Memorandum of Understanding should exist and be signed on to by all of the COs.
Geoffrey Rockwell March 21, 2018 at 5:07 pm

Agreed.

Elisabeth Burr February 13, 2018 at 2:18 am

If ADHO serves COs and COs serve individuals either directly or via their own associate organisations then the membership needs to count when talking about representation. If the size of the membership of COs is not taken into account we might encounter a situation where AOs of COs do not feel to be represented and want to become COs of ADHO themselves. This needs to be avoided in my eyes. We should rather encourage COs to have AOs as such a secondary umbrella structure allows for taking into account regional / continental specifities which ADHO cannot serve so easily. We should also not assume from the start that big COs cannot be considerate and take into account the needs of smaller or developping COs. The history of ADHO proves by itself that big COs did a lot to help smaller COs to get of the ground. Why question this sense of community by expressing worries about over-representation at all?
Geoffrey Rockwell March 21, 2018 at 5:19 pm

I agree that this is important, which is why we have two scenarios that represent membership size in different ways. That said, we wanted to provide another option – the one vote per CO which is simpler. I should add that calculating membership is difficult.

6 Comments on paragraph 9

Elisabeth Burr March 7, 2018 at 2:39 pm

I can see the idea behind this proposal, i.e. consensus, but I am personally against this. Such a scenario could only work if the COs represented more or less an equal size of membership and if their membership was determined each by one country / one nation. This scenario would furthermore prevent regions to work together under one umbrella. When discussions about ADHO started we envisaged that there may be sub umbrellas representing the DH associations of bigger regions. At the moment only EADH works like that, but Europe is not the only region formed of different states and / or nations and / or language communities. I personally could imagine that one day there might be an African umbrella. Would we want such an umbrella to have just one vote? One day even Humanistica could be an umbrella of AOs. Would we want an Humanistica umbrella to have just one vote? In Latin America umbrellas of AOs might form. Would we want these umbrellas to have just one vote although all of them would most probably have quite huge memberships. The case of aaDH, ACH, CSDH/SCHN, and JADH is different and will probably remain different. They should however not be the model for the whole world.
Alex Gil March 7, 2018 at 7:28 pm

This is the only one of the models that preserves balance in voting outside of Europe. I would strongly support this model. The purpose of our alliance is indeed to support CO’s, but those CO’s have geographies (even the “language” ones or CenterNet) attached to them, and any democratic balance should take that into account. I agree with E. Burr’s reservations about the other two models. This model ensures BOTH equal representation and the emphasis on COs. We can continue to allow COs to participate in the conversation without votes, and hopefully onboarding them as COs in the future).
1. Martin Grandjean May 3, 2018 at 9:32 pm
  
  I make the same observation about Euro-centrism. But I wonder, if this option is chosen, if DHD, AIUCD, Nordic, etc. will not wish to be represented otherwise than by their umbrella (this would probably restore euro-centrism).
Elisabeth Burr March 8, 2018 at 11:25 pm

Alex, you might have misunderstood me. I am – and I am talking here only as Elisabeth Burr – against this scenario.
1. Élika Ortega April 2, 2018 at 3:03 pm
  
  I think this point is essential. A clear understanding on whether the COB should be more inward looking towards ADHO or outward looking towards the COs would be helpful. It seems to me that the first scenario look more inwardly towards the evenness of CO representation as a way to ensure ADHO’s health. The other scenarios seem to put more weight on the power and influence that each CO, and other units, will have on the COB.
  Therefore, I support this scenario over the others.
Matthew K. Gold June 23, 2018 at 5:59 pm

I support scenario 1, as it seems to strike the best balance between ensuring the continuing health of ADHO, moving ADHO towards a leaner organizational structure, and distributing decision-making power more equitably among the community of COs. At a moment when DH is proliferating across the globe, scenario 1 offers us the best chance to hear the voices of new organizations and new members while retaining the overall strength of the organization as a whole.

0 Comments on paragraph 10

9 Comments on paragraph 11

Elisabeth Burr March 7, 2018 at 2:48 pm

This scenario is certainly more democratic as it takes the AOs into account and would allow for the formation of more sub-umbrellas of AOs. I do not see the point of having two representatives from each CO. Furthermore I am against giving each SIG a vote. SIGs are, as their denomination says groups which form because of special interests. They do not have the same sort of responsibility to their members as associations have, they do not have the same function either. They do not have membership fees. They are not registered legal bodies as associations which have to abide to the law. I am against watering down the idea of association for whatever reason.
Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:36 pm

I disagree re SIGs. ADHO isn’t an association, itself; and ADHO approves SIGs. They may not be registered legal bodies, but they represent broad ranging — and deep — interests of digital humanities researchers. They may be “special,” but they are relevant across the field, not to a small part of it. SIGs should not be marginalized. I think they should have a vote.

In that light, I think that with AOs and SIGs having voting power in this scenario, it does make sense for COs to have two votes (or two representatives). I would be in favor of each AO having a vote

I share the IC’s concern that this group could become unwieldy, but think that this is the most well represented of the scenarios presented, and am in favor of it.

That said, there must be issues on which a simple majority rule would not make sense — such as, for example, disbanding ADHO. This should be worked out, though perhaps after a governance model is established.
1. Elisabeth Burr March 8, 2018 at 11:29 pm
  
  I am really sorry to have to contradict. ADHO is a registered charity organisation in the Netherlands. Apart from this, I am absolutely in favour of SIGs. SIGs do a great job and it would be really sad not to have them, but SIGs are not associations themselves, instead they work inside a legal body, in this case, inside of ADHO.
  1. Matthew K. Gold June 23, 2018 at 6:02 pm
    
    I’m in agreement with Elisabeth on the question of SIG representation, in that I think that COs (as currently constituted, largely by region) offer the primary point of membership for DH matters. I think SIGs are important, but I see a difference between interest groups and membership organizations
Quinn Dombrowski March 7, 2018 at 10:13 pm

Honest, ignorant question here: does anyone have a sense of how many people are represented solely by AOs or SIGs? And is there any structure for differentiating groups that would/might be CO’s (given resources, etc.) vs. groups for people with cross-cutting interests? (Or is that fundamentally the AO/SIG distinction?)

The SIG that comes to my mind immediately is the geohumanities one, and it strikes me as a bit odd to give them a separate vote. I think of their interests and advocacy being at a different level from CO’s. If ADHO is trying to do less, too, if a SIG were to want to get ADHO to host something as infrastructure, they’d have to work through a CO anyway, wouldn’t they? So I imagine it would make more sense to advocate to the members’ respective CO’s, and get CO’s to work together, rather than having a CO-level vote within ADHO itself.

But at the same time, limiting votes to COs is undesirable if it cuts out people, assuming they’re not realistically represented at all in any other way (i.e. there’s no CO that would be a good fit for them, not just because they haven’t managed to get the Oxford registration form to work or forgot to renew.)
1. Elisabeth Burr March 8, 2018 at 11:36 pm
  
  Just a very short note. The members of SIGs are represented by their COs / AOs because the members of SIGs are members of COs / AOs. According to me – very personal – SIGs should be represented on the COB on the whole but not as individual SIGs. According to me – very personal – the original proposal takes this very well into account giving SIGs a representation on the COB but without a vote. We all should know that not having a vote does not mean in our DH community that one is not listened to / not taken into account and that the question of not having a formal vote only plays a role when there are oppositions. Normally we just work together as well as we can.
2. Geoffrey Rockwell March 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm
  
  In answer to Quinn’s question. We don’t know membership of SIGs, but we do have numbers for COs and AOs. SIGs don’t currently need to track membership. As for AOs, some have significant membership like the Nordic and German. They are then counted under EADH.
Bethany Nowviskie March 7, 2018 at 10:58 pm

Honestly, this one seems like a mess to administer, a difficult set of COB meetings to run, and a sure-fire way to over-represent the already privileged places and cultures that are more likely to spawn SIGs and AOs. As a former CO president and ADHO Steering member, the simple one CO / one vote model (Scenario 1) has my support.
Martin Grandjean May 3, 2018 at 9:46 pm

Well, with option 2, the COB is not any more a CO Board but a kind of general assembly, with all the possible groups represented. That’s good, but that’s not replacing a COB! Having a place where a few representatives of the CO meet is necessary to take the decisions linked to the fundamental participation of the COs to the ADHO.

The problem of such a large assembly, if it is chosen as an extended-COB, is that we may refrain ourselves to create new SIG just because that will means adding chairs to the table. This is not a problem anymore if this assembly is a body in itself, very large and variable on purpose, complementary to a COB from option 1 or 3.

And the other problem of such a representation of all instances is, as others have pointed out, that we are no longer in a representative system since AOs and SIGs are composed of people already represented by COs.

3 Comments on paragraph 12

Elisabeth Burr March 7, 2018 at 2:55 pm

Membership numbers can vary every year. A good example is DHD who has just more or less doubled its membership. A span of three years would not take such changes into account. A yearly adjustment would be needed, given that the development of DH in the world is very fast and we cannot forsee what the future brings. Such a yearly adjustment would be a lot of work and make things very chaotic.
1. Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:47 pm
  
  Agreed.
2. Elisabeth Burr June 21, 2018 at 7:48 pm
  
  correction: my good example was to be DHN not a non existant DHD. The German speaking is called DHd.

0 Comments on paragraph 13

7 Comments on paragraph 14

Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 3:15 pm

This scenario disproportionately benefits COs existing in regions with a longer history of DH work. I am against instituting such systemic bias; it is not fair to newcomer organizations, and also will be very difficult to balance out in the future.
1. Elisabeth Burr March 8, 2018 at 11:48 pm
  
  As I have said in the context of financial questions (see the other document) the history of ADHO contradicts such worries. When ADHO was formed there were only two associations, ACH and ALLC. These two associations, which already had a long history, did everything which was possible to foster the creation of new and sometimes very small associations whose members had been members of either ACH or ALLC for a long time. Furthermore, the only association which in those days had a sound financial basis, i. e. ALLC, did everything to put the joint adventure, ADHO, on sound grounds. Why do we need to put all this in question? Why, suddenly, do we have to create all these worries of supremacy? I personally get the impression, that we will soon be victims of business models which are akin to our up to now quite fruiteful collaboration.
  1. Vika Zafrin March 19, 2018 at 8:55 am
    
    Because people belonging to marginalized groups have had repeated bad experiences with ADHO, and I see no reason to create a system that makes those experiences easier to come by.
Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:41 pm

Total COB size would be 14 seats, 14 votes, according to the list below.
1. Elisabeth Burr March 8, 2018 at 11:53 pm
  
  I have been for a long time on the scientific board of the German Association for Applied Linguistics. This association has a steering committee (president, chair, treasurer etc.) and a scientific board of about 20 to 30 members. We all came together twice a year. We were able to work very constructively and fruitefully and we had very lively discussions. The association is still thriving. And this is not the only association which works like that. Why should ADHO not be capable to do the same? Why is everybody so afraid?
  1. Vika Zafrin March 19, 2018 at 8:56 am
    
    I was just pointing out that “11 seats, 11 votes” is incorrect.
Thomas Padilla March 7, 2018 at 7:56 pm

This model, I think strikes a nice balance membership # and representation in voting. Of course, we would need to make sure that the ranges stayed equitable – for example I wouldn’t support a move to establish more gradations of power > 100 (e.g. 200 = 4, 300 = 5, and so on) members since EADH dwarfs the rest.

Elisabeth Burr February 13, 2018 at 2:05 am

According to me joint membership is a problem with respect to democratic representation. This problem could be solved in two ways: a) abolish joint membership or b) allow for joint membership but joint members need to give preference to one association for a certain length of time.
Bethany Nowviskie March 7, 2018 at 10:45 pm

I agree with Elisabeth that joint membership is a fatal flaw in this third scenario. In the past, I’ve been a joint member because I wanted to contribute more, financially, to all of the associations. I have valued this networking opportunity and I exercised membership privileges over the years, though I’ve voted only in the associations that were closest to me and served me most. If asked to pick only one CO, of course I would align with ACH — but this model as stated disenfranchises me and disadvantages my “home” association — and, really, any association that may have a greater proportion of globally-minded members. Looking at the numbers, this is surely the case for AADH and JADH, which should not be penalized for having attracted lots of joint members. Scenario 3 only works in any sense if you abolish joint membership or require a “home” CO.
1. Elisabeth Burr March 9, 2018 at 12:02 am
  
  I agree whole heartedly. I am against national criteria, COs are different, anyway. If I belong to a CO I belong to it for certain reasons and it is my own choice. My choice can change because of circumstances, but at any one time, I need to make up my mind.
Elisabeth Burr March 9, 2018 at 12:00 am

I agree whole heartedly. I am against national criteria, COs are different, anyway. If I belong to a CO I belong to it for certain reasons and it is my own choice. My choice can change because of circumstances, but at any one time, I need to make up my mind.

0 Comments on paragraph 36

3 Comments on paragraph 37

Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:40 pm

I think that, as above, over-representing established COs should be a non-starter here. In an alliance that purports to be worldwide, in the current world political climate, with the current conversation about colonialism happening all across the field, to propose giving Europe and the U.S. & Canada 10 out of 14 votes seems ridiculous to me.
Patricia Hswe April 2, 2018 at 2:27 am

If this model has a dependency on up-to-date information on membership, and there has been a comment above on how difficult it is to get accurate membership information (such as numbers of members), then why should this scenario be presented as an option? It seems the margin for inaccuracy is a given. If this approach is selected, then what assurances are there that ADHO would commit to improving how it tracks membership? I did see that the ADHO governance proposals site does mention the possible formation of a membership services committee, but I don’t see such a committee listed at the general ADHO site.

I’m a little surprised that there is only a recognition that “it will become increasingly important in this model to have up-to-date information on membership” and not, for example, “This scenario will require ADHO to have up-to-date information on membership, which it currently does not have.” It seems that lack of confidence in membership information should eliminate this scenario.
Martin Grandjean May 3, 2018 at 9:25 pm

This option potentially leads to large fluctuations in the composition of the COB. If we stay in the OUP system, we are extremely dependent on their update schedule. Should we change the composition once a year (proposition is 3 years, but probably not feasible if a new CO joins every year)? When? (January or July can change everything) How to include the membership data of associations that are not in OUP? and those under an umbrella? etc.

Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:44 pm

What would happen if ADHO saw a part of a CO constitution that it did not approve of?
1. Elisabeth Burr March 9, 2018 at 12:07 am
  
  According to me ADHO would have to enter into discussions and negotiations. If the critical points of the constitution of the CO in question cannot be changed, then a decision on inclusion or exclusion will have to be taken. In order to take such decisions ADHO would need to lay down very clear criteria, however.

0 Comments on paragraph 41

3 Comments on paragraph 42

Vika Zafrin March 7, 2018 at 6:46 pm

This appendix should include expansions of all CO name acronyms, or none. (All makes sense to me.)
Elisabeth Burr March 9, 2018 at 12:09 am

I agree. Our documents need to be accessible to everybody not only to insiders.
Geoffrey Rockwell March 26, 2018 at 5:21 pm

Good point. We created the appendix for the first (financial) proposal, but now need to expand it.

most beautiful escort October 24, 2021 at 10:03 am

Comment awaiting moderation
steroid brands November 22, 2021 at 4:13 am

Comment awaiting moderation
สล็อต เครดิตฟรี February 25, 2023 at 1:45 am

Comment awaiting moderation
pastiwin88 March 4, 2023 at 7:41 pm

Comment awaiting moderation
lele247 May 5, 2023 at 8:22 am

Comment awaiting moderation
online casino May 30, 2023 at 9:04 am

Comment awaiting moderation

Contents

Search

Special Pages

Table of Contents

Preamble

Responsibilities of the Constituent Organization Board

Proposals Regarding Membership of the COB

Scenario 1: One CO, One Vote; Majority Voting Rules

Discussion:

Scenario 2: COs + AOs + SIGs, One Vote, Majority Voting Rules

Discussion:

Scenario 3: Range Representation

Total COB Size: 11 seats, 11 votes

Discussion:

General Discussion Related to Governance Protocols

Quorum

Votes

CO Constitution

Role of Non-Voting Representatives

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms

Comments

Comments are closed

Activity

Recent Comments on this Post

Recent Comments in this Document