Thanks Ray! I'd be really interested in hearing what you, Neil, and Howard think about this, given your experience. But my two cents, based largely on my TEI experience...
I think "resource" is the best way of describing the relationship. I.e. As a group of people who have connections, are interested, and are willing to do things like bring forward initiatives.
In exchange, I think what ADHO and its committees might want to do is to make it easy to bring things before them. In some cases that might involve coopting somebody on GO::DH for a specific project or to observe and/or participate in discussions (this is something MLMC does all the time when they need people with specific understandings, backgrounds, or experiences). In others it might involve asking for advice on how researchers outside our usual world might be brought in... or contacts. In yet others it might involve setting aside space for a conference session or similar.
In terms of CO representation, I don't see anything at all wrong with that. In a certain sense, for example, I and you represent CSDH-SCHN, since we were tasked with thinking about this for them last year; and I understand that Glen was in a similar way with ACH. While these were not specific briefs for this group, there's no reason we couldn't involve the COs more.
My concern in relation to ADHO is not to step on existing committee's toes, since I think our interest is regional and across activities, rather than pan regional, but focussed on a specific activity. However, since I have the impression most if not all of the COs are interested in this, it might make sense to have some kind of representation (and, indeed, help improve GO::DH's ability to stay in the loop).
What do you think? I think we don't want to be a committee, but we might well want to have CO representation, now you mention it. I hadn't really considered that before.
-dan
On 12-10-15 01:20 PM, Ray Siemens wrote:
Thanks, Dan.
This sounds great.
With reference perhaps especially to the second point, what interaction with the standing ADHO ctte structure would you imagine?
I realise this has been a point that's floated back and forth for some time, and I ask because the ADHO ctte structure has representational issues that could come into play, as well as standing ctte mandates as well.
Cheers,
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: globaloutlookdh-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:globaloutlookdh-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Daniel O'Donnell Sent: October-15-12 9:56 AM To: globaloutlookDH-l@uleth.ca Subject: [globaloutlookDH-l] Tasks
Apologies for a third email in as many minutes. But I thought splitting the two big issues up might make them easier to digest.
In terms of tasks, I was thinking that there were two main ones: providing intelligence to ADHO (and the High Income Economies DH world in general) about opportunities and people in the relevant Mid and Low Income Economies and researching, discussing, and creating fora for discussing ways of integrating the two worlds more closely.
The first task really involves relying on our native intelligence and knowledge of people and institutions: GO::DH in this sense is really just a conduit through which we can pass on information about conferences, meetings, potential partners back and forth between the ADHO world and the world that is not part of ADHO.
The second is a little more actual work, and would involve trying to proactively discover and promote connections: for example, by organising sessions at conferences, thinking about special issues of journals or collections of essays on the topic, and so on.
There's a lot of good work already going on--we should be in closer contact with the people running THaT Camp Carrib, for example. But that kind of work it seems to me would fall into the second category.
What do you all think?
-dan
Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada
+1 403 393-2539
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l