From the perspective of SIGGEN, we believe the most important
issues are:
1) The structure of the SIGGEN board and how they are elected.
2) Whether INLG financing is handled through SIGGEN and ACL
3) "Support in name" for NLG workshops
4) Changes to the constitution
We welcome comments from SIGGEN members about these issues, and indeed any other issues related to a SIGGEN constitution.
Board composition
SIGGEN practice: 1 student member and 4 non-student members. The members
decide among themselves how to divide up responsibilities.
ACL recommendation: Named officers elected as such, including a Chair and
a Secretary.
Term of office
SIGGEN practice: 2 years for student member, 4 years for non-student member
ACL recommendation: 2 years maximum for everyone
Election procedure
SIGGEN practice: Held every two years, by email. All SIGGEN members
(which in practice is interpreted as all members of the SIGGEN
mailing list) are eligible to vote. Each election is for the student
member and 2 of the 4 non-student members (so, non-student members
serve staggered 4-year terms).
ACL recommendation: hold every 2 years
Note: SIGGEN has a somewhat vague rule that when possible the board should contain one member from each of the three ACL regions (Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific). This has not been spelled out in detail, but presumably means that a candidate from an unrepresented region would "win" an election against a candidate from an already-represented region who got more votes.
SIGGEN practice: SIGGEN has no involvement in the financial side of the INLG
series. Profits from one INLG are generally passed on to the next INLG, but
this is done informally from organiser to organiser.
ACL: ACL has raised the possibility of the funds (accumulated profits) from
INLG being placed in a special "shadow account" for SIGGEN which would be
held by ACL. This has the advantage of regularising INLG finances, and also
giving SIGGEN access to funds (eg, to purchase a URL). However, it has the
disadvantage that ACL would insist that INLG attendees be ACL members if
ACL was involved in any way (including shadow accounts) with the financing
of INLG.
SIGGEN practice: The SIGGEN board occasionally gives "support in name"
to worthy NLG workshops. This can be used by workshop organisers when
advertising their workshop or when applying to funding bodies for financial
support.
ACL: ACL says that ACL SIG's cannot give any kind of support to non-ACL
events unless this is approved by the ACL executive,
SIGGEN practice: Changes to SIGGEN are discussed and voted on at SIGGEN
business meetings during INLG.
ACL: ACL has no recommendations for this, but ACL itself has moved to
a system where constitution changes are announced to the membership
and voted on by email.
The current SIGGEN board's position on the above issues is
SIGGEN BOARD: The board has no strong opinion on this, but it does
tend to the opinion that the current structure seems to work
reasonably well.
INLG Financing: This was discussed by the SIGGEN community in 1999, and
the community preferred not to involve ACL because it felt that we
should encourage people from outside NLP to attend INLG, and that
requiring ACL membership might discourage such people. The board
suspects that this is still the opinion of the community.
SUPPORT IN NAME: The board believes that getting permission from ACL is
OK provided that such permission is granted quickly and without
hassle for respectable workshops.
CONSTITUTION CHANGE: The board does not have any opinion on this.
© 1999-2000 Dynamic Multimedia Pty. Limited