Here is the state of play in terms of the GO::DH structure and terms of reference as I understand the discussion. If this seems reasonable, I could add it to the draft description I sent round and we could submit it to the ADHO Steering Committee for discussion.
1) The organisation is a Special Interest Group focussed on ensuring issues in the global participation in DH are part of our general discourse at ADHO and serving as a facilitator between ADHO, its committees, COs, and members and those communities that are not represented by ADHO in any significant fashion.
2) Tasks include advocacy, research, and facilitation. GO::DH is not a replacement or competitor for any ADHO committee: its goal is to act as a resource and prompt, rather than an executor.
3) There is no limit on general membership. The important thing is that you are interested in the issue(s).
4) The group is to be led by a small executive made up of people who are willing to take a more active role in proposing activities, interacting with ADHO, conducting research, and the like. Ideally this will involve people with interests in various parts of the globe.
5) Participation by ADHO COs and committees would be extremely welcome if this seems wise to them and the ADHO SC: two possibilities for this participation might be that each CO appoint a representative to the GO::DH executive, or, if a lighter footprint is desired, that the SC appoint a couple of representatives to act for all (my preference would be the first option, I think).
6) When it seems desirable or practical, the SIG would break into smaller working groups focussed on a particular region or problem. Currently there is probably enough interest and participation for a group on China, for example.
I hope this is both accurate and the right combination of useful structure with minimal overhead and maximum flexibility. What do others think?
-dan
Dan and all,
I, too, am eager to hear what the rest of the group thinks about the points below. For now, I'd like to suggest that the two options you offer in point 5 might be supplemented by a third: that GO::DH have ex officio representation from the related ADHO committees, as opposed to the CO's themselves: those committees that would be relevant include Admissions, Conferences, MLMC, Training (once that is established). Perhaps Ray or someone else could suggest others that I have not thought to include in the list.
Best, Neil
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Daniel O'Donnell <daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca
wrote:
Here is the state of play in terms of the GO::DH structure and terms of reference as I understand the discussion. If this seems reasonable, I could add it to the draft description I sent round and we could submit it to the ADHO Steering Committee for discussion.
- The organisation is a Special Interest Group focussed on ensuring
issues in the global participation in DH are part of our general discourse at ADHO and serving as a facilitator between ADHO, its committees, COs, and members and those communities that are not represented by ADHO in any significant fashion.
- Tasks include advocacy, research, and facilitation. GO::DH is not a
replacement or competitor for any ADHO committee: its goal is to act as a resource and prompt, rather than an executor.
- There is no limit on general membership. The important thing is that
you are interested in the issue(s).
- The group is to be led by a small executive made up of people who are
willing to take a more active role in proposing activities, interacting with ADHO, conducting research, and the like. Ideally this will involve people with interests in various parts of the globe.
- Participation by ADHO COs and committees would be extremely welcome if
this seems wise to them and the ADHO SC: two possibilities for this participation might be that each CO appoint a representative to the GO::DH executive, or, if a lighter footprint is desired, that the SC appoint a couple of representatives to act for all (my preference would be the first option, I think).
- When it seems desirable or practical, the SIG would break into smaller
working groups focussed on a particular region or problem. Currently there is probably enough interest and participation for a group on China, for example.
I hope this is both accurate and the right combination of useful structure with minimal overhead and maximum flexibility. What do others 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-lhttp://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
Good idea! Maybe even a combination: invite COs to appoint representatives to go::dh and have a go::dh observer on relevant committees.
I'm thinking particularly that center net for e.g. might be interested and useful to have on gi::dh and at least two of the others already have semi-official representation.
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Neil Fraistat nfraistat@gmail.com wrote: Dan and all,
I, too, am eager to hear what the rest of the group thinks about the points below. For now, I'd like to suggest that the two options you offer in point 5 might be supplemented by a third: that GO::DH have ex officio representation from the related ADHO committees, as opposed to the CO's themselves: those committees that would be relevant include Admissions, Conferences, MLMC, Training (once that is established). Perhaps Ray or someone else could suggest others that I have not thought to include in the list.
Best, Neil
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Daniel O'Donnell <daniel.odonnell@uleth.camailto:daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca> wrote: Here is the state of play in terms of the GO::DH structure and terms of reference as I understand the discussion. If this seems reasonable, I could add it to the draft description I sent round and we could submit it to the ADHO Steering Committee for discussion.
1) The organisation is a Special Interest Group focussed on ensuring issues in the global participation in DH are part of our general discourse at ADHO and serving as a facilitator between ADHO, its committees, COs, and members and those communities that are not represented by ADHO in any significant fashion.
2) Tasks include advocacy, research, and facilitation. GO::DH is not a replacement or competitor for any ADHO committee: its goal is to act as a resource and prompt, rather than an executor.
3) There is no limit on general membership. The important thing is that you are interested in the issue(s).
4) The group is to be led by a small executive made up of people who are willing to take a more active role in proposing activities, interacting with ADHO, conducting research, and the like. Ideally this will involve people with interests in various parts of the globe.
5) Participation by ADHO COs and committees would be extremely welcome if this seems wise to them and the ADHO SC: two possibilities for this participation might be that each CO appoint a representative to the GO::DH executive, or, if a lighter footprint is desired, that the SC appoint a couple of representatives to act for all (my preference would be the first option, I think).
6) When it seems desirable or practical, the SIG would break into smaller working groups focussed on a particular region or problem. Currently there is probably enough interest and participation for a group on China, for example.
I hope this is both accurate and the right combination of useful structure with minimal overhead and maximum flexibility. What do others think?
-dan -- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada
+1 403 393-2539tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539
_______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.camailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
-- Neil Fraistat Professor of English & Director Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) 0301 Hornbake Library University of Maryland 301-405-5896 or 301-314-7111 (fax) http://www.mith.umd.edu/ https://twitter.com/fraistat
Neil, Dan,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell@uleth.cawrote:
Good idea! Maybe even a combination: invite COs to appoint representatives to go::dh and have a go::dh observer on relevant committees.
Compared to most people on the list I am quite ignorant about how the ADHO works, but the above sounds like a good solution, considering global outreach is part of the agenda of different COs. ADHO would probably want a mechanism to facilitate communication on this evolving issue.
marcus
All,
Some further thoughts on structure: what if GO::DH were a special interest group that reports to the Admissions Committee, which would then channel follow up to the appropriate ADHO committee? This would give GO::DH a clear place and reporting line within the overall ADHO structure and would help to ensure that ADHO is speaking with one consistent voice to the new communities it engages.
We might then think about the work of GO::DH as locating dh activity in particular geographical areas not currently involved with ADHO, surveying that activity, identifying key contact people and institutions, ascertaining their interest in engaging with ADHO, and then making the handshake to Admissions.
Would that make sense? Neil
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Marcus Bingenheimer < m.bingenheimer@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil, Dan,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell@uleth.cawrote:
Good idea! Maybe even a combination: invite COs to appoint representatives to go::dh and have a go::dh observer on relevant committees.
Compared to most people on the list I am quite ignorant about how the ADHO works, but the above sounds like a good solution, considering global outreach is part of the agenda of different COs. ADHO would probably want a mechanism to facilitate communication on this evolving issue.
marcus
-- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
HI Neil, and all,
I’ve been wondering (as my earlier mails will attest) about interrelation with ADHO structures as well.
This suggestion sounds like a very positive one – a solid way both to ensure that ADHO and GO::DH are working together in areas of shared concern, but more specifically in identifying areas where ADHO could be of greatest assistance. I think here of the very positive outreach that our Admissions Ctte, and Harold in particular, has done in past. It seems like a natural fit.
All best
Ray
____________ R.G. Siemens, English, University of Victoria, PO Box 3070 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada. V8W 3W1. Clearihue C315 & B043b P:250.721.7255 F:250.721.6498 siemens@uvic.camailto:siemens@uvic.ca http://web.uvic.ca/~siemens/
From: globaloutlookdh-l-bounces@uleth.ca [mailto:globaloutlookdh-l-bounces@uleth.ca] On Behalf Of Neil Fraistat Sent: October-18-12 8:00 AM To: A list for participants in the ADHO DH Global Outlook Community Subject: Re: [globaloutlookDH-l] Terms of reference, redux
All,
Some further thoughts on structure: what if GO::DH were a special interest group that reports to the Admissions Committee, which would then channel follow up to the appropriate ADHO committee? This would give GO::DH a clear place and reporting line within the overall ADHO structure and would help to ensure that ADHO is speaking with one consistent voice to the new communities it engages.
We might then think about the work of GO::DH as locating dh activity in particular geographical areas not currently involved with ADHO, surveying that activity, identifying key contact people and institutions, ascertaining their interest in engaging with ADHO, and then making the handshake to Admissions.
Would that make sense? Neil
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Marcus Bingenheimer <m.bingenheimer@gmail.commailto:m.bingenheimer@gmail.com> wrote: Neil, Dan, On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, O'Donnell, Dan <daniel.odonnell@uleth.camailto:daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca> wrote: Good idea! Maybe even a combination: invite COs to appoint representatives to go::dh and have a go::dh observer on relevant committees.
Compared to most people on the list I am quite ignorant about how the ADHO works, but the above sounds like a good solution, considering global outreach is part of the agenda of different COs. ADHO would probably want a mechanism to facilitate communication on this evolving issue.
marcus
-- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net
_______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.camailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
-- Neil Fraistat Professor of English & Director Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) 0301 Hornbake Library University of Maryland 301-405-5896 or 301-314-7111 (fax) http://www.mith.umd.edu/ https://twitter.com/fraistat
Neil and Ray,
Personally I would be very comfortable working within this framework (GO::DH reporting to Admissions). It seems like a good basis for discussions with prospective ADHO or Centernet members in India and China.
marcus
I agree. I think this proposal also avoids the potential for conflict in mandate with the Multilingual and MultiCultural committee. Elisabeth was quite comfortable with everything last time we talked, but I have still always worried about mandates clashing in practice or appearance.
The only caveat I would suggest to this is is that I think it would be a mistake to see us as working narrowly on admissions issues. GO::DH seems to me to be more community development rather than straight on admissions--though that is obviously not in conflict with admissions.
So, for example, a perfectly reasonable result would be an increase in African individual participation in the ALLC, or Latin American participation at DH, rather than the creation of an African or Latin American DH society.
I realise that narrowly focussing on admission to ADHO was not what was being suggested. My point only is that if a danger of being not assigned to admissions is that the mandate might start creeping around, a danger the other way is that association under admissions might have a psychological effect of narrowing it.
I still think this is a great idea, though. Probably the thing to do is make sure the language about the mission and range of activities is very good.
I think there have been some real steps forward here!
-dan
On 12-10-18 09:10 AM, Marcus Bingenheimer wrote:
Neil and Ray,
Personally I would be very comfortable working within this framework (GO::DH reporting to Admissions). It seems like a good basis for discussions with prospective ADHO or Centernet members in India and China.
marcus
-- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
Right, Dan. The point would be that Admissions hands off the relevant follow up to the appropriate committee; much of what arises will certainly not concern admission at the organization level.
Neil
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Daniel O'Donnell daniel.odonnell@uleth.cawrote:
I agree. I think this proposal also avoids the potential for conflict in mandate with the Multilingual and MultiCultural committee. Elisabeth was quite comfortable with everything last time we talked, but I have still always worried about mandates clashing in practice or appearance.
The only caveat I would suggest to this is is that I think it would be a mistake to see us as working narrowly on admissions issues. GO::DH seems to me to be more community development rather than straight on admissions--though that is obviously not in conflict with admissions.
So, for example, a perfectly reasonable result would be an increase in African individual participation in the ALLC, or Latin American participation at DH, rather than the creation of an African or Latin American DH society.
I realise that narrowly focussing on admission to ADHO was not what was being suggested. My point only is that if a danger of being not assigned to admissions is that the mandate might start creeping around, a danger the other way is that association under admissions might have a psychological effect of narrowing it.
I still think this is a great idea, though. Probably the thing to do is make sure the language about the mission and range of activities is very good.
I think there have been some real steps forward here!
-dan
On 12-10-18 09:10 AM, Marcus Bingenheimer wrote:
Neil and Ray,
Personally I would be very comfortable working within this framework (GO::DH reporting to Admissions). It seems like a good basis for discussions with prospective ADHO or Centernet members in India and China.
marcus
-- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net
______________________________**_________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/**mailman/listinfo/**globaloutlookdh-lhttp://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
-- 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-lhttp://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
I could see that in the idea: this is an excellent bit of language for making it explicit.
I also agree that that is the place where the most natural interest probably is. AND it reduces what was threatening to become a heavy organisational overhead.
I'm guessing in terms of organisation we are now thinking something like this:
Executive Committee consisting of 4-6 people ideally who are able to spend some modicum of time thinking about it. Membership includes reps from COs (presumably drawn from the people who were interested in it anyway) and is drawn with some eye to distribution of geographic interests or (keeping Oyvind's point in mind, hopefully geography).
Beyond that, no real limit on membership: if you are interested and want to be on the mailing list, you are in.
Mandate is to research, promote, and facilitate global participation in DH across the spectrum: encouraging researchers, institutions, students, etc. to get in contact with each other and collaborate; encourage and foster the development of organisations supporting DH in areas that currently do not have a large presence in the ADHO community, generally focus on encouraging contacts.
That's not so elegantly stated, but I'm sure we've had good language earlier in the discussion.
On 12-10-18 12:34 PM, Neil Fraistat wrote:
Right, Dan. The point would be that Admissions hands off the relevant follow up to the appropriate committee; much of what arises will certainly not concern admission at the organization level.
Neil
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Daniel O'Donnell <daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca mailto:daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca> wrote:
I agree. I think this proposal also avoids the potential for conflict in mandate with the Multilingual and MultiCultural committee. Elisabeth was quite comfortable with everything last time we talked, but I have still always worried about mandates clashing in practice or appearance. The only caveat I would suggest to this is is that I think it would be a mistake to see us as working narrowly on admissions issues. GO::DH seems to me to be more community development rather than straight on admissions--though that is obviously not in conflict with admissions. So, for example, a perfectly reasonable result would be an increase in African individual participation in the ALLC, or Latin American participation at DH, rather than the creation of an African or Latin American DH society. I realise that narrowly focussing on admission to ADHO was not what was being suggested. My point only is that if a danger of being not assigned to admissions is that the mandate might start creeping around, a danger the other way is that association under admissions might have a psychological effect of narrowing it. I still think this is a great idea, though. Probably the thing to do is make sure the language about the mission and range of activities is very good. I think there have been some real steps forward here! -dan On 12-10-18 09:10 AM, Marcus Bingenheimer wrote: Neil and Ray, Personally I would be very comfortable working within this framework (GO::DH reporting to Admissions). It seems like a good basis for discussions with prospective ADHO or Centernet members in India and China. marcus -- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net _________________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca> http://listserv.uleth.ca/__mailman/listinfo/__globaloutlookdh-l <http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l> -- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada +1 403 393-2539 <tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539> _________________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca> http://listserv.uleth.ca/__mailman/listinfo/__globaloutlookdh-l <http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l>-- Neil Fraistat Professor of English & Director Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) 0301 Hornbake Library University of Maryland 301-405-5896 or 301-314-7111 (fax) http://www.mith.umd.edu/ https://twitter.com/fraistat
Dear all,
Sorry for having been a little slow on responding the last few days. Good work! I support the points below, with refinements suggested.
I assume that representation could be double for some people, e.g., representing one CO and one committee at the same time. We have a limited number of people willing to work on this, I guess.
I also believe that one of the first things to discuss is how to approach scholars in areas where we would like to see development. How do we address the need of institutions being to a degree "homegrown" with the fact that we propose things from other parts of the world?
Regards,
Øyvind
On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
Here is the state of play in terms of the GO::DH structure and terms of reference as I understand the discussion. If this seems reasonable, I could add it to the draft description I sent round and we could submit it to the ADHO Steering Committee for discussion.
- The organisation is a Special Interest Group focussed on ensuring
issues in the global participation in DH are part of our general discourse at ADHO and serving as a facilitator between ADHO, its committees, COs, and members and those communities that are not represented by ADHO in any significant fashion.
- Tasks include advocacy, research, and facilitation. GO::DH is not a
replacement or competitor for any ADHO committee: its goal is to act as a resource and prompt, rather than an executor.
- There is no limit on general membership. The important thing is that
you are interested in the issue(s).
- The group is to be led by a small executive made up of people who are
willing to take a more active role in proposing activities, interacting with ADHO, conducting research, and the like. Ideally this will involve people with interests in various parts of the globe.
- Participation by ADHO COs and committees would be extremely welcome
if this seems wise to them and the ADHO SC: two possibilities for this participation might be that each CO appoint a representative to the GO::DH executive, or, if a lighter footprint is desired, that the SC appoint a couple of representatives to act for all (my preference would be the first option, I think).
- When it seems desirable or practical, the SIG would break into
smaller working groups focussed on a particular region or problem. Currently there is probably enough interest and participation for a group on China, for example.
I hope this is both accurate and the right combination of useful structure with minimal overhead and maximum flexibility. What do others think?
-dan
Excellent points Oyvind, especially that last!
On 12-10-17 02:06 AM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear all,
Sorry for having been a little slow on responding the last few days. Good work! I support the points below, with refinements suggested.
I assume that representation could be double for some people, e.g., representing one CO and one committee at the same time. We have a limited number of people willing to work on this, I guess.
I also believe that one of the first things to discuss is how to approach scholars in areas where we would like to see development. How do we address the need of institutions being to a degree "homegrown" with the fact that we propose things from other parts of the world?
Regards,
Øyvind
On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
Here is the state of play in terms of the GO::DH structure and terms of reference as I understand the discussion. If this seems reasonable, I could add it to the draft description I sent round and we could submit it to the ADHO Steering Committee for discussion.
- The organisation is a Special Interest Group focussed on ensuring
issues in the global participation in DH are part of our general discourse at ADHO and serving as a facilitator between ADHO, its committees, COs, and members and those communities that are not represented by ADHO in any significant fashion.
- Tasks include advocacy, research, and facilitation. GO::DH is not a
replacement or competitor for any ADHO committee: its goal is to act as a resource and prompt, rather than an executor.
- There is no limit on general membership. The important thing is that
you are interested in the issue(s).
- The group is to be led by a small executive made up of people who are
willing to take a more active role in proposing activities, interacting with ADHO, conducting research, and the like. Ideally this will involve people with interests in various parts of the globe.
- Participation by ADHO COs and committees would be extremely welcome
if this seems wise to them and the ADHO SC: two possibilities for this participation might be that each CO appoint a representative to the GO::DH executive, or, if a lighter footprint is desired, that the SC appoint a couple of representatives to act for all (my preference would be the first option, I think).
- When it seems desirable or practical, the SIG would break into
smaller working groups focussed on a particular region or problem. Currently there is probably enough interest and participation for a group on China, for example.
I hope this is both accurate and the right combination of useful structure with minimal overhead and maximum flexibility. What do others think?
-dan
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
-
Daniel O'Donnell -
Marcus Bingenheimer -
Neil Fraistat -
O'Donnell, Dan
-
Ray Siemens -
Øyvind Eide