Thread Subject: Re: TEITAC subcommittee participants

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: TEITAC subcommittee participants

From: Bailey Bruce [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:15 AM
To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
Cc: Baquis David; Deborah Buck
Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC committee participants


> Does the communications task force have the responsibility to provide
guidance > to the subcommittee chairs about how "balance among interests
should be
> maintained"?

No, not the Task Force. Maybe AB staff or Mike or I.

> I think we said that people should send an email to convenor or chairs if
they > want to be on the committee.

Or they can edit the list of members.

> Who has the responsibility for keeping track of "subcommittee membership"?
> What privileges and responsibilities does "subcommittee membership"
convey?

Good point. I would say that if you want to be on the mailing list, you just
agree to receive the traffic. If you want to be on the subcommittee, you
agree to work. No way to enforce that, of course, but I think it makes
sense.

> I am a little concerned that at least one work page list, as it is shaping
up > so far, rather strongly implies that an affiliation is desirable (or
maybe
> even necessary)

I agree. I think we should discourage over-emphasis on organizational roles
-- it intimidates just-plain-individuals, undercuts collegiality, and
reinforces tough stances instead of open minds.

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: TEITAC subcommittee participants

>>
>> > I am a little concerned that at least one work page list, as it is
>> > shaping
>> up > so far, rather strongly implies that an affiliation is
>> desirable (or maybe
>> > even necessary)
>>
>> I agree. I think we should discourage over-emphasis on
>> organizational roles
>> -- it intimidates just-plain-individuals, undercuts
>> collegiality, and reinforces tough stances instead of open minds.

> I simply added an item for "individual members not affiliated with an
> organization" on our group (at the top) so that individuals were
welcome.
> The affiliation information I think is helpful in keeping track of things
> and since so many people don't know each other.

I didn't do anything to the SW and Web participant page. It was initially
set up to request an organization name. I have modified it to have a
category for individuals too.

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: TEITAC subcommittee participants

I simply added an item for "individual members not affiliated with an
organization" on our group (at the top) so that individuals were welcome.
The affiliation information I think is helpful in keeping track of things
and since so many people don't know each other.


Gregg

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:34 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Communications Task Force'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC subcommittee participants
>
>
> From: Bailey Bruce [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Cc: Baquis David; Deborah Buck
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC committee participants
>
>
> > Does the communications task force have the responsibility
> to provide
> guidance > to the subcommittee chairs about how "balance
> among interests should be
> > maintained"?
>
> No, not the Task Force. Maybe AB staff or Mike or I.
>
> > I think we said that people should send an email to
> convenor or chairs
> > if
> they > want to be on the committee.
>
> Or they can edit the list of members.
>
> > Who has the responsibility for keeping track of
> "subcommittee membership"?
> > What privileges and responsibilities does "subcommittee membership"
> convey?
>
> Good point. I would say that if you want to be on the mailing
> list, you just agree to receive the traffic. If you want to
> be on the subcommittee, you agree to work. No way to enforce
> that, of course, but I think it makes
> sense.
>
> > I am a little concerned that at least one work page list, as it is
> > shaping
> up > so far, rather strongly implies that an affiliation is
> desirable (or maybe
> > even necessary)
>
> I agree. I think we should discourage over-emphasis on
> organizational roles
> -- it intimidates just-plain-individuals, undercuts
> collegiality, and reinforces tough stances instead of open minds.
>
>