I agree completely, this would greatly improve the transparency of and engagement with the process.
Rob On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:53 PM Erin Canning via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to raise three items for discussion, regarding the SIG > meetings and processes. "Improve voting process" would be the second of > these: > > *Background:* At the SIG meetings we are voting for decisions after > discussion. It is often unclear why some participants vote and others do > not. Typically newcomers feel that they should not or cannot vote. When > documenting the votes, there is no clarity on how many participants > abstained and how many were not eligible to vote. At the moment, the > recorded votes do not represent this situation accurately. > > *Proposal:* > > 1. In each vote, all present participants respond in one of four > categories: yes, no, abstain, ineligible (for those participants who have > not been voted as SIG members). All responses are recorded. Reasoning for > opposing votes should be recorded in the minutes, and participants are > encouraged to provide rationale if desired. > 2. During the first session, the status of voting members is explained > and when everyone introduces themselves participants who are not already > voted are asked whether they would like to be voted as SIG members so that > they can have voting capacity. > > > I look forward to your thoughts. > > All the best, > Erin Canning > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
