Published: Oct. 3, 2010, 3:32 p.m.
Duration: 1 hour 14 minutes 10 seconds
\\n06:51:43 craignl -> Good evening
\\n07:05:32 craignl -> Good evening Peadar
\\n07:05:46 peadar -> evening
\\n07:15:15 peadar -> hi room
\\n07:16:54 craignl -> Evening all
\\n07:17:23 peadar -> I believe if anyone has\\nquestions please speak up
\\n07:20:02 saradavila -> Question for\\nConference Chair and Co-Chair: This year conference\\nacceptence/rejection process was handled in a manner I felt was very\\nunprofessional. I\'d like to know how the conference will address this\\nissue in the future to make the process more personal, and show more\\nrespect for all canidates submitting papers for the call.
\\n07:21:56 Jeff -> http://shomuni.blogspot.com/
\\n07:24:32 chosunbimbo -> @Sara I think you\\nhave to take into consideration there were in excess of 300 proposals\\nreceived by the program team - While they were form letters that people\\nreceived they were professional and in line with any other rejection or\\nacceptance letter you might have received from any other organisation
\\n07:25:55 chosunbimbo -> This will be the\\nfirst year in A LONG TIME there have been contests for various positions
\\n07:26:05 chosunbimbo -> Am I the only one\\nhere?
\\n07:26:06 chosunbimbo -> Hello
\\n07:26:12 chosunbimbo -> Is this thing on?
\\n07:26:21 peadar -> its here
\\n07:26:22 chosunbimbo -> *tap* *tap*
\\n07:27:07 peadar -> I can however say having\\nrecieved one of those letters it was not inline with what was sent to\\nme last year
\\n07:27:20 chosunbimbo -> rejection letter?
\\n07:27:36 peadar -> was rejected last year\\nand accepted this year
\\n07:30:08 chosunbimbo -> interesting - I got\\none - but being on concomm I knew the same day that the mail went out\\nand paid it little attention - what did it say
\\n07:31:08 peadar -> it required you to\\ndownload and check a full list of accepted proposals to see if you had\\nben accepted or rejected
\\n07:31:52 craignl -> I find Paedar\'s comment\\non rejection/acceptance from year to year interesting. As someone who\\nparticipated in the vetting process, I was somewhat concerned that\\nthere were no clear guidelines for vetting proposals. Having been part\\nof Conference planning teams, both international, that\'s one area the\\nConference Committee might consider for improvment (sorry that I\'m\\nveering a bit off topic).
\\n07:32:52 craignl -> Sorry, the last sentence\\nshould read \'...both international and national\'
\\n07:33:06 peadar -> its a great point I just\\nworry that the way the notifications were handeld this year might\\ndiscourage presenters in the future
\\n07:33:49 saradavila -> I\'ve been a presenter\\nat the international for about five years. The acceptance/rejection\\nprocess this year was much different form last year.
\\n07:34:05 saradavila -> This year to find out\\nif you were accepted or rejected you had to read a list of accepted\\nproposals.
\\n07:34:18 saradavila -> Last year a form\\nletter was sent to presenters who had been accepted.
\\n07:34:37 saradavila -> A seperate letter to\\npresenters who had been rejected, thanking them for time and\\nencouraging them to resubmit.
\\n07:34:48 craignl -> Yes, usually when I have\\nmade proposals to other international conferences I have usually gotten\\na message courteously but clearly saying \'Yes\' or \'No\'
\\n07:35:35 chosunbimbo -> Ah I see - I didn\'t\\nrealise it was just one email to everyone who submitted a paper...
\\n07:35:59 saradavila -> When I received the\\nletter and was asked to see if I was on the list of accepted proposals,\\nI have to say, I was insulted. Going through that list I didn\'t even\\nsee my name the first time as I was so upset. There is impersonal and\\nthen there is just unprofessional. I\'m sorry, the way it was handled\\nthis year was unprofessional.
\\n07:36:40 MattinDaegu -> is there any\\nparticular reason why they changed the process?
\\n07:37:13 saradavila -> For submitters who\\nwere putting in proposals for the first time, I can\'t imagine the let\\ndown for those that were accepted. I mean, really, just a moment to get\\nthat letter, even a form letter, that says "Congradulations, your paper\\nmade it" is an achievement. I remember the first one I got, I still\\nhave it.
\\n07:37:44 craignl -> I wonder if the pressure\\nof time caused a certain \'cutting of corners\' - not to excuse what\\nhappened, but to explain
\\n07:38:11 saradavila -> Those presenters who\\nwere accepted for the first time this year lost out on that experience,\\nand I for one, am rather offended that an organization and large as\\nKOTESOL, with a conference fielding as many proposals as we have, would\\nuse this particular method.
\\n07:38:43 saradavila -> Being an experience\\nEXCEL user it would take four minutes to set up two seperate lists for\\naccepted and rejected proposals.
\\n07:38:53 saradavila -> experienced
\\n07:40:07 craignl -> This may lead on to a\\nlarger issue - for an international conference like ours, I\'ve begun to\\nthink having a daedline for proposals being as close to the Conference\\ndate as it is, especially when compared to other conferences, is not a\\ngood thing. Anyone else with thoughts on this?
\\n07:40:28 saradavila -> As I recall the\\ndeadline was May 31st for proposals.
\\n07:40:40 craignl -> I believe it was extended
\\n07:41:02 chosunbimbo -> 5 months - is not\\nall that short....
\\n07:41:03 saradavila -> Further, if there are\\nno clear guidelines in the vetting process I have to wonder about\\nwhether or not new presenters are truly being considered as\\npresentations.
\\n07:41:28 MattinDaegu -> for an international\\nconference, particularly for presenters from outside of Korea, I would\\nsay they need a little more time to make plans, books tickets etc.
\\n07:41:49 saradavila -> I\'ve also been rather\\nunhappy with the scheduling process. At the moment my presentation is\\nscheduled in clear conflict with the available times I submitted to\\npresent. I am not the only presenter who has expereinced this problem.
\\n07:42:00 chosunbimbo -> I\'m interested in\\nwhat you say Craig - my understanding (not my dept) as that there was a\\nmuch more thorough vetting process this year
\\n07:42:05 saradavila -> @Jeff, EPIK show,\\nabsolutely.
\\n07:42:56 peadar -> does anyone have any\\nopinions on the proposed then unproposed changes to the constitution
\\n07:43:04 MattinDaegu -> is the vetting\\nprocess codified in the bylaws?
\\n07:43:05 chosunbimbo -> Yes many
\\n07:43:11 saradavila -> If we are recieving\\nso many proposals I am curious about the need to extend?
\\n07:43:19 Jeff -> \\nhttp://www.koreabridge.com/kotesol/busan04/
\\n07:43:29 chosunbimbo -> We won\'t hold he\\nfact that he\'s Australian against Aaron
\\n07:43:38 peadar -> @ chosun please raise the\\nissues
\\n07:43:45 saradavila -> Considering the push\\nduring last years election for communication I find the lack of\\npresentaiton to all members of proposed changes telling.
\\n07:43:55 peadar -> its a good place to\\ndiscuss them
\\n07:44:33 chosunbimbo -> See now, where was\\nthis lack of communication? I got the draft, read the changes, and am\\nhappy to cast my vote having made up my mind...
\\n07:45:21 chosunbimbo -> Yay! More Chapterr\\nConferences! i want to go to Jeju!
\\n07:46:57 peadar -> @chosun I know of two\\nseperate drafts of the changes that were sent out
\\n07:47:06 chosunbimbo -> On the tabling of\\nthe amendments - it now means that the new term of National Council\\nwill start with some members not being able to vote - i.e. the o-Chair,\\nwho, because of precedent usually has a voting seat on Council, but\\nwhose vote is not set in stone as it were in the constitution
\\n07:47:08 saradavila -> I have not received a\\ndraft.
\\n07:47:18 craignl -> @chosun - The \'lack of\\ncommunication\' refers to the proposed changes to the Constitution and\\nBylaws?
\\n07:47:33 chosunbimbo -> Web presence - Hell\\nYes
\\n07:48:32 MattinDaegu -> just reading the\\ncharter...it states that the proposed changes must be sent out to all\\nmembers at least 30 days prior to the vote...I never got a copy, Sara\\nhasn\'t...
\\n07:48:48 MattinDaegu -> I\'m sure we\'re not\\nthe only ones
\\n07:48:55 craignl -> Sorry I was just\\nchecking some things - well, the fact is that two versions of the\\nproposed changes, unalike, went around to the membership. Members were\\nnot in possession of the same set of proposed changes
\\n07:49:00 dhuffer -> Vote is not occuring\\nright now.
\\n07:49:06 chosunbimbo -> OK some people\\ndidn\'t get it, I\'m not saying there is an element of malfesence, but it\\nleaves council in a position where a) status quo remains (and i believe\\none "bloq on council wants this) and b) the same bloq is threatened by\\nanother bloq who might vote against them because they doin\'t have the\\nnumbers
\\n07:49:22 chosunbimbo -> That and some\\ngeneral ineptitude in getting the info out to everyone
\\n07:49:26 craignl -> True, and a good\\ndecision was made to delay the vote on this.
\\n07:50:37 chosunbimbo -> Yay! More kotesol\\nJournal!
\\n07:50:39 peadar -> why is it a good decision\\nto not manage to propose something that has been worked on for 8 months
\\n07:51:02 chosunbimbo -> indeed - By Laws can\\nbe voted for at the ABM on Sunday
\\n07:51:09 peadar -> do to "some general\\nineptitude"
\\n07:51:17 chosunbimbo -> As can the change in\\nthe constitution according to one reading of the rules
\\n07:52:08 craignl -> I\'m sorry - what reading\\nis that?
\\n07:52:14 MattinDaegu -> will they be listing\\nwhat said proposed changes are in full at the conference?
\\n07:52:36 dhuffer -> I think they\'re still\\ndiscussing the changes
\\n07:53:08 MattinDaegu -> will they be taking\\nthe opportunity presented by the international conference to discuss\\nthe changes with regular members?
\\n07:53:08 peadar -> call sig
\\n07:54:07 dhuffer -> I was told they\'d be\\ntaken up at the next national council meeting - I think that\'s the\\nleadership retreat in Dec or Jan
\\n07:54:46 peadar -> sadly this will not have\\na membership voting opportunity
\\n07:55:21 saradavila -> As for the KTT it\\nwould be great to see a bit more compesntation for preparation and\\ntravel.
\\n07:55:31 MattinDaegu -> but there is a great\\nopportunity to at least show what the proposed changes are at this\\nconference...why won\'t they be taking advantage of it...even to just\\nhave them on display...
\\n07:56:22 craignl -> Well, if the changes are\\nproperly hammered out at the next Council, they will have to be\\nproperly sent out, 30 days for perusal/debate, and then an electronic\\nballot can be taken
\\n07:56:40 saradavila -> Waves!
\\n07:56:44 saradavila -> It\'s that Sara.
\\n07:57:24 saradavila -> As to the journal it\\nwould nice to see grants reinstated to encourage research.
\\n07:57:38 peadar -> or publicity about it
\\n07:57:58 MattinDaegu -> ok, but my point is,\\nwhy aren\'t regular members being consulted, even in a broad sense, at\\nan international forum which would be a perfect opportunity...and the\\nissue raised by Chosun about bloqs could be made clear to the general\\nmembers who would then be better able to choose appropriate leadership
\\n07:58:33 chosunbimbo -> @Matt - come to the\\nABM on Sunday and ask The National Council - They\'ll be there.
\\n07:58:53 MattinDaegu -> I\'m already planning\\non it!
\\n07:58:57 dhuffer -> I agree
\\n07:59:22 dhuffer -> But I don\'t think they\\nhave proposals close enough to discuss.
\\n07:59:37 chosunbimbo -> @Matt - I think\\nwe\'re all aware of the bloqs aren\'t we...?
\\n08:00:12 chosunbimbo -> 3...2...1...
\\n08:00:41 MattinDaegu -> no, I\'ve never been\\nto the national conference before...as a poli-sci major, they\'ll\\nprobably become evident quickly enough but the point being I think not\\nevery member will be so aware, and they need the opportunity to observe\\ntheir leadership
\\n08:00:51 saradavila -> Finally\\nvideo....Wee...
\\n08:00:57 dhuffer -> echo
\\n08:01:19 chosunbimbo -> Sorry - no video\\nfrom me...winnie the pooh jimjams not so flattering
\\n08:02:05 MattinDaegu -> is everyone using\\nvideo?
\\n08:02:10 saradavila -> Winnie makes\\neverything flattering.
\\n08:02:17 dhuffer -> just Peader
\\n08:02:20 chosunbimbo -> @Sara heeheehee
\\n08:03:09 saradavila -> Will there be no\\ndiscussion of by law issues at the National Conference, or is this the\\nSaturday of the National Conference?
\\n08:03:34 chosunbimbo -> The Annual Business\\nmeeting will be the opportunity to bring it up Sunday 4pm
\\n08:03:45 chosunbimbo -> Floor is open to all\\nmembers
\\n08:03:56 MattinDaegu -> that\'s\\nirritating...I have to work in Daegu on Sunday...can\'t be there
\\n08:04:05 dhuffer -> You can bring it up, but\\nthey\'ll probably sandbag
\\n08:04:30 saradavila -> Communication has\\ndefinately been an issue this year.
\\n08:04:43 chosunbimbo -> Well i am one of\\nabout 4 people I know who have yet to receive a reply from Bob Caprilis\\nafter i wrote him this week on the subject
\\n08:04:58 saradavila -> There have been a\\nnumber of meetings and events this year that have not been well\\nannounced to the general members.
\\n08:05:01 chosunbimbo -> Other things - no\\ncouncil minutes being distributed
\\n08:05:09 dhuffer -> he sent out mass\\nemail. I think that was your reply
\\n08:05:11 chosunbimbo -> who knows what\\nthey\'re up to....
\\n08:05:15 chosunbimbo -> heeheehee
\\n08:05:24 dhuffer -> and where\'s the budget\\nbeen?
\\n08:05:31 MattinDaegu -> world domination by\\nthe cunning use of bylaws
\\n08:05:37 saradavila -> Is the budget out\\nyet? Are we still running without a budget?
\\n08:05:46 chosunbimbo -> see Matt - you do\\nknow the bloqs
\\n08:05:49 MattinDaegu -> lol
\\n08:06:06 dhuffer -> I saw one on FB\\nConcerned Members group. But nothing official from KOTESOL
\\n08:06:08 saradavila -> Suncheon Outreach\\nWorkshop, represent!
\\n08:06:15 saradavila -> Great group of\\nteachers yesterday!
\\n08:06:52 saradavila -> I was there as a KTT\\ninvited speaker, good time.
\\n08:08:02 MattinDaegu -> IX. Amendments. The\\nBylaws may be amended by a majority vote of members provided that\\nnotice of the proposed change has been given to all members at least\\nthirty days before the vote. The Bylaws may be amended without such\\nprior notice only at the Annual Business Meeting, and in that case the\\nproposal shall require approval by three-fourths of the members\\npresent.
\\n08:08:25 chosunbimbo -> @matt - indeed
\\n08:08:27 MattinDaegu -> this seems to imply\\nthat there MUST be a vote on the bylaws, or any proposals
\\n08:08:52 craignl -> Which version, though?\\nTwo versions went out
\\n08:09:08 MattinDaegu -> and if they don\'t\\nhave a quarum, the vote would, according to Robert\'s Rules of Order, it\\nwould not be a valid vote...this is the one currently up on the KOTESOL\\nwebsite
\\n08:09:11 chosunbimbo -> The problem being -\\nsoemone would have to put in the time and develop changes, distribute\\nand talk about them at the meeting and then propose a vote without the\\nmotion being voted down
\\n08:09:47 chosunbimbo -> or being called out\\nof order as you note
\\n08:10:21 chosunbimbo -> I also have a big\\nissue with the "rules" and their interpretation being vested in ine\\nperson
\\n08:10:30 chosunbimbo -> *one person*
\\n08:10:49 MattinDaegu -> so basically, any\\nvote made there could be argued as invalid as there\'s unlikely to be a\\nvalid quorum
\\n08:11:07 chosunbimbo -> what is required for\\na quarum?
\\n08:11:12 chosunbimbo -> 20?
\\n08:11:18 chosunbimbo -> plus natcon?
\\n08:12:22 chosunbimbo -> there should be a\\nquarum at the ABM - there are enough interested general members this\\nyear who have expressed their interest in attending
\\n08:12:28 MattinDaegu -> it isn\'t listed in\\nthe bylaws...natcon is what I\'m assuming it\'s talking about, which is\\ngenerally accepted as 2/3 of registered members...now the bylaws state\\n3/4 majority of members PRESENT, but it could be argued that this would\\nstill be invalid as it could be used in a very sneaky way
\\n08:13:01 MattinDaegu -> that\'s assuming that\\neveryone would be there and available to vote
\\n08:13:02 chosunbimbo -> right - which is why\\nONE person is not enough to turn to for an interpretaion of the rules
\\n08:14:01 chosunbimbo -> i play starcraft
\\n08:14:10 MattinDaegu -> lol
\\n08:14:26 MattinDaegu -> I have SouthPark on\\nin the background
\\n08:15:32 dhuffer -> there won\'t be a quorum\\nat the ABM
\\n08:16:16 MattinDaegu -> so when will they\\nmake proposals open for discussion/debate to general members?
\\n08:17:21 saradavila -> The ABM should be on\\nsunday the 17th and it is usually pretty well attended.
\\n08:17:25 saradavila -> That was my\\nunderstanding.
\\n08:17:47 dhuffer -> good question. \\nI don\'t think the current council intends for member\\ndiscussion. it\'ll be straight vote
\\n08:17:52 chosunbimbo -> changes have been\\ntabled and will be looked at again by natcon - the new one - who knows\\nhow long that will take, sent out to members and then add 30 dys before\\na vote
\\n08:18:04 MattinDaegu -> ah...I might be\\ngiving you some questions to ask, if you don\'t mind as I can\'t been\\nthere...
\\n08:18:22 chosunbimbo -> can\'t be changed by\\ncouncil - has to be all members
\\n08:18:43 dhuffer -> Constitution doesn\'t\\ndefine quorum, so by default it should be 1/2 of members
\\n08:19:04 dhuffer -> I think last year about\\n400 voters
\\n08:19:17 chosunbimbo -> who saw my brochure?\\nWho saw my brochure?
\\n08:19:25 MattinDaegu -> hmmmm...might be\\nsomething to bring up with the council...that a quorum defined in the\\nbylaws
\\n08:20:15 dhuffer -> BT!
'
-->
Listed in: Culture