International Association for Language Learning Technology

IALLT Summer Leadership Meeting June 22, 2002 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Present: Gamin Bartle, Cindy Bravo, Lynne Crandall, Monika Dressler, Samantha Earp, Cindy Evans, Harold Hendricks, Read Gilgen, Marlene Johnshoy, Teresa Johnson, Ute Lahaie, Peter Liddell, David Pankratz, Bruce Parkhurst, Lauren Rosen, Andrew Ross, Jeff Samuels, Barbara Sawhill, Georgia Schlau, Jan Stewart, Jörg Waltje, Sara Wilson Call To Order: 9:03am EDT Working Group Continuation § David distributed a revised agenda for the day's activities. He outlined the work of Group E Electronic Issues, Group F Conference Planning, Group G Meet with the President, and then released the groups for their final working session. Presentation of Findings, Proposals from Working Groups 1. Process and Updates § David advised each group they would have 15 minutes to present findings and make proposals. § Documentation from each group was given to Lynne for inclusion in the Minutes. Those documents will be accessible from the IALLT website as SLM Working Group Documents. § Reversing an earlier decision, the Board determined to renew the iallt.net domain name for one-year, including a re-direct message at the site. o Lauren pointed out the brochures will need to be corrected to indicate the new URL. She advised making changes in the electronic files. Peter will contact Rachel to find out if she possesses the electronic files for the brochure. 2. Budget, Membership and Core Services Report (Group A) § Lauren moved IALLT adopt the following fee structure effective 7/1/2002: Educational Membership $50 one-year/$90 two-year Library/Institutional Subscriber $60/Volume Student/Retired IALLT member $25 one-year/ (no two-year option) Commercial Membership $75 one-year/$140 two-year. Lynne seconded the motion. o Discussion § Jeff wondered if there had been any consideration of lifetime membership. Teresa noted the norm is 10 times the annual dues. § The group declined to consider lifetime memberships at this time. o The Motion passed unanimously. 3. Publications (Group B) § The group announced a synopsis of the current survey results will be distributed. § Peter moved on behalf of the Publications working group, a Management Manual committee be formulated to oversee the development and production process. o Bruce made a friendly amendment to include "and LCDK" to the Motion. Peter accepted the amendment. o The amended Motion is that a committee be nominated to oversee the development and production processes of the Management Manual and the Language Center Design Kit; the committee to consist of the Editor of the publication in question and up to two other members chosen by the Editor. Lauren seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously. § Peter moved the print version of the Member Directory be discontinued and replaced by an online Member Directory available from the members only partition of the IALLT website. Lynne seconded the Motion. o Concern was expressed that all information currently in the print Member Directory be available in the online Member Directory, and be made available in a print-friendly form. The group affirmed this was the intent. o The Motion passed unanimously. § Peter moved a mechanism be created for members to update their contact information online. Harold seconded the Motion. o Discussion § Peter explained this will keep the organization's records updated. The intent is to make members responsible for maintaining accuracy of their own contact information. § Lauren explained that members in the database already have a member tag. Bruce accepted responsibility for communicating the needs for this mechanism to the database developers. Lauren anticipates there will be an added cost for this feature. o The Motion passed unanimously. § Peter moved a mechanism be created to allow current subscribers access to all online Journal content. Lynne seconded the motion. o Discussion § Lauren wondered if the online Journal content could be isolated from other member benefits. Andrew, Marlene and Samantha replied that the web architecture exists to enable limited access. § Lauren suggested we amend to include if technically feasible. She expressed concern about access to member data. § Bruce inquired about the status of subscribers and was assured access included current subscribers. o David called the vote. On voice vote the motion did not pass unanimously and the Board continued discussion. § Lynne expressed concern about compelling the conversation without the presence and participation of the people responsible for implementation. § Bruce expressed concern about putting emphasis on limited access before the database infrastructure was established to support it. § Peter accepted Lauren's friendly amendment to include "if technically feasible" and Bruce's clarification of status of subscribers. o Peter's revised Motion is that a mechanism be created to allow current non-voting members and subscribers access to all online Journal content, if technically feasible. Lauren seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously. Peter briefly left the meeting. § Acting on behalf of the Publications group in Peter's absence, Lynne moved that IALLT revive the Monograph series. Harold seconded the Motion. o Discussion § Read provided some history on the series, including the Task-Based Activities, and the original Lab Management Manual and Language Center Design Kit. These evolved into short, relevant publications. o The Motion passed unanimously. § Lynne moved that IALLT commission articles on the following topics for submission to other professional journals: defining the status of language technology professionals, internally and externally; professional recognition: promotion and tenure; and, a survey of developments in formal graduate study in language technology. The President-Elect will oversee the effort. Further, these articles will be expanded for publication in the IALLT Monograph series. Harold seconded the Motion. o Discussion § Bruce asked for clarification of Topic 3, a survey of developments in formal graduate study in language technology. Samantha explained that it was designed to analyze the coming group of professionals. § Samantha referred to previous recommendations regarding outreach to other professional organizations. o The Motion passed unanimously. Peter returned to the meeting. 3. Regional Groups and Affiliations (Group C) § Acting on behalf of the Regional Groups and Affiliations Group, Harold moved IALLT discontinue the $2 subsidy for regional groups at the end of Fiscal Year 2003. Peter seconded the Motion. o Discussion § Lauren wondered if IALLT would continue to provide the list of members in each region to the regional leadership. § Bruce argued that for struggling or startup groups the $2 subsidy is useful. § Read suggested the Board would be amenable to providing start-up funds as needed. § Bruce also asked about the mailing labels. Lauren responded she is willing to send mailing labels electronically in various formats. § Lynne wondered if we should entertain an amendment about the ability of regional groups to ask for funding support, but the group felt that was unnecessary; groups would know this was possible. o David called the vote. The Motion passed unanimously. § The Group did not believe it necessary for motions to be entertained on encouraging regional groups to involve Canadian members. 4. Database (Group D) § The Group had no motions to present. Rice has received a job specification but has not yet responded with a bid. o Read noted the issues have to do with real costs and portability of the database. o Bruce explained the sequence of how we address the database issues is linear and we must wait for additional information from Rice before we can take any actions. 5. Electronic Issues, Outreach (Group E) § The Group noted website issues were addressed at the Friday meeting and the new website was in place. o Lauren wondered about the flexibility of the site's hierarchy. It was decided if questions or comments arise regarding the site structure they should be sent to Reid and copied to Peter. Comments submitted to the Webmaster will be forwarded to the Web Editor and President-Elect. o Lynne noted the group generated a list of details for augmentation and that Reid indicated the site will grow and change as needs are identified. o Peter will address style issues; Bruno and Reid will handle structural issues. § Regarding the Digital Exchange, the organization needs to decide what we'd like to undertake and then do it. o Cindy Bravo suggested the Special Task Force of Publishers and Members should discuss this further and the prototype that Otmar developed be used as a model for discussion. She asserted that given the ranking of the job positions held by some of the publishers on the task force, these publishers might more convincingly and persuasively illustrate to their permissions people what we want to do in such a digital exchange. § Ute wondered if IALLT should put the burden of digitization on the publishers with the organization recommending publishers to break down the units to correspond to the accompanying materials. Ute felt the Special Task Force members could relay recommendations to the publishers. o The Group recommends the Board charge the Special Task Force with this expanded initiative. § Lynne moved the participant email addresses for the LLTI list be set to private. Peter seconded the Motion. o Discussion § The group was surprised to learn the list had been openly available. § Read asserted IALLT owns the list and the Board will retain access to addresses. o The Motion passed unanimously. § Other LLTI options were discussed. o It was recommended that a summary of the work completed at the SLM be posted on LLTI. o Regarding an LLTI tagline, the group recommended LLTI incorporate the IALLT name, logo and URL as a footer in messages. o A link to the members-only partition of the website could also be posted on LLTI periodically. 6. Meet with the President (Group G) § Jeff Samuels reported on a discussion item that IALLT create a standard form to help individuals have the rubric to solicit permissions. o This would include both the process involved and a template requesting permission. o Regarding the Digital Exchange, Cindy wondered if we could place a radio button on a permission template to download from IALLT; publishers would provide an access key to enable the download. o Andrew clarified that the purpose of the Digital Exchange is to eliminate the redundancy of everyone digitizing the same materials. § Jan Stewart suggested this is a reason to talk with the publishers about desirable formats. o Teresa suggested we be sure to watch out for the interests of students. § Cindy noted publishers have expressed concern about a growing trend for students not to buy the textbooks, and some have initiated a subscription service. § Samantha wondered if people who took on initiatives of the Board received liability protection from the Board delegation. David affirmed this was true. 7. Conference Planning and Guidelines (Group F) § Conference Accounting o Monika requested the group entertain a motion that the conference host shall be responsible for preparing and presenting to the Board a post-conference accounting of expenses and revenue, in the form of written report or spreadsheet. We rely on the goodwill and honesty of the host for the report accuracy. § Procedure: Conference accounting will occur at the midpoint between the conference and the SLM, so that the outgoing host's report is available to the incoming host in time to prepare the pre-conference estimate for the SLM. § An expected information flow would be conference-preliminary report- final report on past conference/preliminary report for upcoming conference at SLM-final budget-conference. § Peter suggested wording be included to specify a date, such as "a preliminary post-conference budget from the preceding conference will be prepared by" o Harold moved that the conference host be responsible for preparing and presenting to the Board a preliminary post-conference accounting of expenses and revenue in the form of a written report or spreadsheet at the mid-point between the conference and the next annual business meeting. Peter seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously. o Harold moved that the upcoming conference host will prepare and present to the Board a preliminary estimate of conference expenses and revenue in the form of a written report or spreadsheet prior to the annual business meeting preceding the conference. Peter seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously. § Conference Development Fund o Acting on behalf of the Conference Working Group, Harold moved that effective with the IALLT 2003 conference IALLT shall establish in its budget a Conference Development Fund, with an initial line amount of up to $10,000, earmarked for projects and/or initiatives which further the development of the conference. The funds come from conference proceeds and are carried forward as a conference expense from one conference to the next. In the year preceding the conference, the host may request $10,000 seed money from IALLT, with the understanding that it will be returned not later than 12 months before the next conference. The Board will re-evaluate the procedure and amount designated for this fund as part of the annual business meeting. Lynne seconded the Motion. § Discussion · Bruce explained the initial seed money would come in the form of an in-house contribution from Rice University for further development of an IALLT-owned conference website template. · Lauren expressed concern about how this receipt will impact our tax status. Lynne responded our non-profit status is related to what we do with the money. · Read expressed concern about whether the burden of recouping these funds would fall too heavily on the backs of attendees. · Monika noted the post-conference review will be very formative for the funds likely to be achieved. She asserted costs and profit will be variable for every institution, and determined by the effort undertaken by each host unit. · Monika relayed information provided to her that conference hosts plan the space and needs of 500 attendees, but budget intake from 200 attendees. § Harold asked the Motion be tabled. Lynne supported Harold's request. The group agreed unanimously. The Motion was tabled for Board discussion at its July 9, 2002 meeting. § The Council expressed its thanks for the generosity of the group, noting this would be a significant change in conference hosting. § Bruce stated for the record, the issue of who bears the cost of hosting the database has yet to be worked out. Is that a conference development cost or an IALLT cost? Will the conference underwrite the costs for the two years preceding the conference? 7. Miscellaneous § Jeff suggested the Board establish a position statement to the publishers that the resources we use should be made available digitally. o Peter suggested we do this as a large group at the next conference. He related this to the joint statement issued on 9-11 by EuroCALL, CALICO and IALLT, among others, to make a widespread and higher impact statement. o Bruce cautioned that we not encourage full abandonment of analog materials yet. Final Business Meeting 1. IALLT 2003 § David announced the Program Committee for IALLT 2003. Bruce Parkhurst is Conference Program Chair, and committee members are past host Claire Bartlett, future host Harold Hendricks, Journal representative Andrew Ross, and the fifth member will be an MWALL member to be named. § The Council gave round robin impressions on University of Michigan and Ann Arbor issues, and possibilities for IALLT 2003. o whirly ball as entertainment option o concentrate on K-12 inclusion o plan for higher food budget than at prior conferences o provide a list of restaurants with price code o research the shuttle bus service for airport o signage and logistics (even at the airport) o include lab sessions of various University of Michigan IT units o enable people to migrate between regions at regional lunches o have some type of gathering or reception every night, perhaps between 5-6pm o hold special interest sessions at varying times to enable attendees to participate in more than one session o encourage presenters to write up papers for the Journal o provide incentives for early registration, perhaps early registrants are automatically enrolled for door prizes o regional groups might provide incentives for participation too o provide identifying ribbons on tags for Board, Council, newcomers, and regional groups o inject humor whenever possible o include art museum and Greenfield Village in entertainment possibilities o ask local restaurants for coupons § Moni asked the Council to send her additional thoughts as they arise. 2. Overview of IALLT 2005 § Harold provided an overview of early plans for FLEAT V. He plans to center activities at the Provo Marriott with morning coffee sessions, after which attendees will take buses to campus for the afternoon sessions. He noted Provo is very pleased to host the conference. § Jan offered to prepare a document to assist the Japanese in preparing for American ways, similar to the document he prepared for FLEAT IV. § Harold explained they are considering offering vendor sessions in the morning. He was urged to consider spreading out the sessions. § Harold noted the distance from the Marriott to campus on a drive through traffic is 15 minutes. 3. Call for Proposals for hosting IALLT 2007, 2009 § Moni urged people to think ahead, asserting the more preparation time the host has, the better. § David noted hosting is a wonderful opportunity. 4. Plan of action post-SLM § David jovially reminded attendees they know the commitments they have made, so should know what to do. § He urged the Council to examine the website, take pictures, look at minutes, and review to-do items. 5. Upcoming Election § Read reviewed the upcoming election process. He will begin assembling an election slate and will conduct the election, as part of his duties as Past-President. § He noted there will be four positions on the slate and it's not yet known which, if any, will have incumbents running. The positions are Secretary, Treasurer, Programs Director and President Elect. He must identify two candidates for each office. 6. Graduate Student Conference Grant § It was recommended the word "minimum" be dropped from the text. § Bruce expressed concern about the timing of the conference call with scholarship deadlines. She would like there to be clarification on the timing of scholarship to presentation notification in case attendance is contingent on funding. § Bruce would like to make it explicit in the call that graduate student presentations are invited, noting they may or may not have access to scholarship funds. She wondered what type of presentation would satisfy requirements: a poster session? showcase? In order for a graduate student to get funding, what does the program need to list them as? o Lauren suggested we post two calls, one normal conference call and another specifically soliciting graduate students. § Samantha urged we consider under-represented populations in scholarship awards. 7. David reminded attendees comments on the Statement of Professional Responsibilities will be entertained at the WorkTools site until June 30, 2002. 8. Other § David asked Bruce to provide the final leadership tip. Bruce responded you will have better success getting people involved if you encourage them in things they are already interested and motivated in. § The next meeting of the Board will occur on July 9. Meeting Adjourned 2:37pm EDT Respectfully submitted, Lynne A. Crandall