Global Steering Committee - Have Your Say

williamprater · **Posts:** 15

I think it sounds like a wonderful idea. ---william prater, Nashville CSTS

tawg · **Posts:** 1

Much of this has to do with ensuring that the GO does their job, which I have no qualms with. In fact, I think it's a great idea to have a body in place to offer support when it's needed, or remove people when they don't do their job. I do worry that, since it's such a small committee, there may be accusations of bias/personal vendettas influencing decisions (particularly when it comes to identifying a GO as unfit for their role). How transparent with the decisions and the discussions within the GSC be?
Are there any intended functions of the committee outside of roles and responsibilities listed?

JenskiJen · **Posts:** 2822 **Signal Origin:** Melbourne, Australia

Lioness · **Posts:** 2430 **Signal Origin:** Toronto

I understand why it is a small group - it is the only way to get things done sometimes, but I wonder if there can be an explanation about how the membership was decided upon. By continent seems logical on one hand but certainly doesn't reflect where the majority of the screenings are- in the U.S. I don't want this group to be unmanageably large but should the U.S. have 2 voices because of the number of screenings there? or does the fact that the Chair will be from the U.S. answer that? As well as the fact that it is one country and thus the same concerns.

This year Europe had 4 screenings, The Pacific region had 2- I'm not including Affiliate cities here.
I have issues with Canada being lumped in with the U.S. when our concerns can be very different. We had 3 screenings this year, and will have 4 next year and yet we don't get a voice when other regions who have the same number of screenings, do.

One other question. The current Global organizer, can't vote for the other Steering Committee members. Is this to avoid any appearance of "stacking" the committee in their favour?

JenskiJen · **Posts:** 2822 **Signal Origin:** Melbourne, Australia

Lioness, thank you for raising some excellent points.

The proposed make up of the GSC was designed so that the needs of each region would be represented. In the past, the event has primarily taken the needs of the US cities into account, often at the expense of other countries. This may have resulted in decreased participation outside the US, and limited the potential growth of the event. Key issues in this space are shipping of goods to international countries, licensing requirements for different areas, and lack of understanding around international audiences. It wil not always be the case that the Global Team will have representation from each region (or possibly any member outside the US), so it is felt that by having each region represented at a GSC level, we could ensure that the needs of those outside the US are addressed so that the event can grow to be truely global.

So far, the GO has always been from the US, which would give North America two voices on the GSC. However, this may not always be the case, so I can see your point.

Would Canada prefer to have it's own regional representative? If that is Canada's preference, we can certainly add that role in, and make it a committee of 6 rather than 5.

It should also be noted that the GSC Chair would not necessarily be the past GO, but could be any member of the GSC (with the exception of the Equality Now representative, per the request of Amanda Sullivan), as voted on by the members of the GSC. The GSC Chair could, for example, be the CSTS Europe representative.

Regarding your question about the current Global organizer not being able to vote for the other Steering Committee members - as the 2009 GO would be automatically on the GSC, we would like to avoid any perceived bias in the voting for other members. Voting would be done by Event Organisers only (as this committee is ultimately designed to be the voice of Event Organisers), and as the GO is not an Event Organiser, it does seem appropriate. However, if the concensus is to change this, it can be done.

All elements of the proposal are open for change, so please feel free to suggest alternatives.

Lioness · **Posts:** 2430 **Signal Origin:** Toronto

Miranda · **Posts:** 493 **Signal Origin:** Adelaide, Australia

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a representative from the actual area on the committee, it's a nice idea, BUT it can severely limit your options for the membership (As Lioness said, only 2 events in Asia Pacific), and as long as the LO's are asked what they need and require by global, they dont necessarily need a spot on the GSC, just as long as they are considered.

Personally, I think you might not have too many people putting their hands up for the job. It's a convoluted application process, and its a 2 year lock in. I don't know about you guys, but i have no idea what i'll be doing in 2 years, let alone which state/country i will be living in. the 2 year term also limits your pool of GO applicants. There aren't many people keen or able to do the job, and they are likely to be the same people likely to sit on the GSC.

Just a thought. The concept is right on the money though

JenskiJen · **Posts:** 2822 **Signal Origin:** Melbourne, Australia

JenskiJen · **Posts:** 2822 **Signal Origin:** Melbourne, Australia

Galumbits · **Posts:** 169

II'm not sure it's a good idea to give any one country their own chair. If Canada, why not any other individual country that has an issue that is particular to their region/country? I understand that because all the GOs so far have been from the US that this has resulted in some unintended biases, but I think that indicates more that we need to become better at understanding the issue organizers face outside the US (i.e. shipping and customs on merchandise). Beyond that, if (when) someone from outside the US becomes GO, we'll all be dealing with those same biases whether Canada has its own seat or not. The assumption here is that the chair will always be held by someone in the US and I'm not sure we can make that assumption based on four years. It can be just as easily held by someone in Canada or Australia, or anywhere else that has held a screening.

Beyond that, having six people on a committee seems unwise simply for the chance there can be a split vote. By making the committee consist of an even number, you have to then take on the responsibility of writing up a whole list of procedures about what to do if the vote goes three/three. An uneven number will never present that problem. Perhaps that seems silly, but PDX Browncoats workgroup has an uneven number for that very reason and it has saved us a lot of work and hassle.

Lioness · **Posts:** 2430 **Signal Origin:** Toronto

Galumbits, I understand your concerns about one country having a seat but that is essentially what will happen if "North America" is one representative. And that country will be the U.S. I assure you that we have different issues than the U.S.and I have been struggling for years to get that recognized.(This year was much better but not perfect.)
I am a dual U.S./Canadian citizen and I spend a lot of time in the States and let me tell you, we are different up here

And it is often not recognized at all in the U.S.
However, this is not the place to get into a political/socio/cultural discussion!
But I will say that the sheer size of the U.S. vs Canada means that there could be 5-10 U.S. people running for the one position and one Canadian. How likely do you think it is that that Canadian would ever get picked?

I agree the even number of members would be a concern.

I don't have the answer. But I don't think that the suggested set up, as it currently stands, is it.

Edited to add - the question may be moot though. Who knows if there are enough people willing to run in any one region. I'm not as optimistic as you, Jen.

Miranda · **Posts:** 493 **Signal Origin:** Adelaide, Australia

I think Galumbits may be on to something. Why not having the member on the steering committee who represents a region, and they in turn have an advisor from that region if it is not their own? There'd have to be some transparency so that it was sure they were raising the concerns of that region, but if say i knew i could raise my concerns about australia with a particular rep, and that they were assigned to make sure we got looked after, i would be fine with that, and it would mean i could be 100% sure we would be represented without having to nominate myself (there's not that many aussies who would be willing, or fit the criteria) which i wont do, i have no idea what ill be doing in 5 months time, where i'll be living. i dont even know if im running an event next year. I wasn't supposed to run this years. but being an advisor on specific issues related to australian (and to an extent NZ if karen was unavailable) would require even less, and i could do that regardless of whether i was running an event this year, and i imagine other organisers would be in a similar situation. I could help look after us here in aus if needed, but making big decision for global? a 2 year commitment? not a possibility

It would be nice if there were a member from each region, but as long as we are represented strongly and listened to, that would be better

JenskiJen · **Posts:** 2822 **Signal Origin:** Melbourne, Australia

Thank you to everyone who has given their input. I will be posting final version and the Call for Applications tonight (it's a day late because I've been working on the auction).

CSTS Community Forums

Global Steering Committee - Have Your Say

Who is online