TEI Council Conference Call, 17 August 2011

Participants: Laurent Romary (Chair, LR), Brett Barney (BB), Gabriel Bodard (GB), Lou Burnard (LB), James Cummings (JC), Martin Holmes (MH), Julianne Nyhan (JN), Elena Pierazzo (EP)

Apologies: Piotr Banski, Kevin Hawkins, Sebastian Rahtz, Stuart Yeates

Location: Skype

Item 1: Vote of no confidence in Chair of TEI

A purely factual overview was presented by LB of the sequence of events of the Board meeting held on 11 August 2011, where a vote of no confidence in the chair was carried.

The Council expressed great surprise and shock at the suddenness of this vote. It noted that among members of the TEI community there seemed to be a strong body of support for some of the ideas that Martin Mueller had expressed in a “vision document” shared with both Board and Council shortly before the meeting. MH and EP asked for more information concerning what had led to the vote, if it was not the ideas in that document. LR and LB confirmed that there was opposition to some of Martin’s ideas and methods on the Board, and that his work had been made quite difficult at times as a consequence. This development however was entirely unexpected by the TEI Council and community. The Council felt that the unilateral manner in which the vote of no confidence was implemented seemed symptomatic of other difficulties that exist between the Board and Council and that the TEI community was not always equally well-reflected by those institutions. JC suggested that greater transparency between Board and community with regard to the selection of Martin as chair might have helped. GB expressed concern that four people only had been available to vote on such an important issue. JN seconded both comments. LB said that the Board had acted with due diligence in selecting Martin as chair, and is doing so also with the selection of an interim chair. This interim chair will hopefully continue to address the concerns raised by the previous chair’s vision document.

The council expressed frustration at the lack of communication that exists between it and the board; notwithstanding our different missions it is imperative that we communicate on matters of joint interest and import. Council expressed much regret that it was not made aware of the impending vote of no confidence. EP asked for greater communication between the Board and the Council, as both are appointed as representatives of the community. The lack of communication coupled with the actions of the board was seen as a sign that it was acting as a cohort of individuals rather than as representatives of the TEI community. LR noted that he was the liaison for the Council with the Board and that one of Martin’s proposals was that some aspects of the Board and Council could be merged. The participation of the then Chair of the TEI Board at the TEI Council meeting in Chicago earlier this year signaled a greater participation, which was welcomed. LR noted that while some operational change is necessary and might be more beneficial than carrying on with the same infrastructure, this needed to be balanced against the benefit that comes from the Council’s capacity to work independently of the Board. MH appreciated the manner in which the existence of the Board shielded his work on Council from being distracted by too many political issues. GB agreed that this was a good thing, but only when the system is functioning in a manner representative of the TEI community. It was felt that solely having the minutes, which usually aren’t announced to the TEI-L, was not enough.

Given the damage to the reputation of the TEI Board in the community EP mooted the possibility of asking the entire board to be up for election at the member’s meeting. This was not that any particular individual should resign but that all positions should be up for election. After discussion it was decided that the potential disadvantages of this would outweigh the advantages, especially from the perspective of institutional memory and continuity. A sadness was expressed by some at a loss of faith in the infrastructure of the TEI, perhaps related to the small number of voting members participating in the elections by comparison with the size and maturity of the TEI community, as noted by LB. The TEI Council, though also elected, operates more in the style of an open source community than does the Board and it is possible to imagine a future where the Council increasingly moved to this sort of model. LR noted that we should discuss what measures are necessary to facilitate the continued community development of the TEI. The widespread reaction expressed by members of the TEI community on social networking sites had been partly negative, viewing all TEI activities as tarred with the same brush. But it was also partly seen as reassuring -- despite low membership numbers, the TEI is highly valued and matters to people.

The Council reflected on the need to revise the current overly-hierarchical structure of the TEI as an organization. We need to find a way of operating in which both Board and Council can continue to do their jobs while ensuring that the needs of the community will be respected.

We agreed that a short statement of our concerns should be widely circulated, based on text initially circulated by JC prior to the meeting. This is the revised text of that statement:

Dear TEI community and board, Following the recent events, the TEI council discussed the issue on a telephone conference yesterday and wished unanimously to express the following statement.

= A statement from the TEI Technical Council on the recent actions of the TEI Board of Directors =

The TEI Technical Council is shocked and saddened by the sudden actions at the TEI Board of Directors which led to the resignation of its chair and the implications this may have for the ability of the TEI Board of Directors to work effectively as representatives of the TEI community.

The TEI Technical Council appreciated the willingness of the outgoing chair to provide a vision for the TEI that could have contributed to reforming the TEI Consortium as an organization. We believe that the events announced by the TEI Board of Directors on 15 August 2011, pending greater explanation, have caused real harm to the TEI Consortium, and we wish to know the Board's plans for restoring the Consortium's reputation and good standing in the community.

The TEI Technical Council continues to function and wants to get on with its job of improving and openly maintaining the Guidelines and associated systems and resources on behalf of the TEI community. We hope that the TEI Board of Directors will consider the issues that the outgoing chair raised as it moves forward, and we desire a greater transparency and accountability in TEI Board of Directors activities, notwithstanding the minutes of meetings it already publishes. We call for reforms that introduce mechanisms to make TEI Board of Directors activities more transparent and built on greater consultation with the TEI community.

This was discussed on the TEI Council mailing list and circulated as soon as it had been ratified by the Council.

Item 2: Next Release of the Guidelines

The next release of the Guidelines is scheduled to take place before the 2011 members meeting in Würzburg. At present LB is at work on a document that sets out how the genetic encoding proposals should be integrated into the TEI P5 (especially the transcription module). LB will be willing to triage tickets for work before the next release, but cannot do so for the next couple of weeks. EP questioned whether council wanted to discuss the issues more; JC, not wanting to derail the conversation too much, wondered aloud if this would include the contentious potential merging of ‘document’ and ‘facsimile’. LB noted that he was working on the proposals as a whole. Many of the proposals had already been agreed by Council, but since some were contentious he was constructing a detailed proposal document rather than just implementing them directly. Council seemed in agreement that this was a good way to progress on this since the genetic encoding was something it wanted to see in the next release.

It was requested that council members not only comment on tickets but, where they concern a trivial, agreed, or resolved matter, to take the initiative in making appropriate changes in the source files too. LB and other Council members pointed to the documentation on how to do this that was made available after the Chicago 2011 Council meeting. Council members are requested to go through SourceForge and identify an implementable ticket and claim it on the Council mailing list in the next couple weeks. If Council members encounter difficulties they should ask on the mailing list for assistance.

A deadline for the next release (the beginning of October) was agreed, so as to allow changes before the members meeting.

Item 3: Next Face-to-Face meeting

LR spared Council an in-depth summary of the bureaucratic fight to have a second face-to-face meeting of the Council. The next face-to-face meeting will take place in Paris from 7-9 November 2011. INRIA will provide rooms and coffee breaks and CNRS may also be contributing. The first half of the meeting will address ticket resolution and general Council business; the second half will be dedicated to a small number of major prospective discussions, some of which were already included in the proposal to the Board. LR will forward this to the Council mailing list for discussion. One issue that was suggested for discussion was how the Council members would cope, e.g. in finding sources of funding for travel to face-to-face meetings, if the Board was no longer in a position to fund these.

LR thanked attendees, noting that the willingness to attend at such a short notice spoke volumes for the deep level of commitment TEI Council members felt to the community.