If you're feeling railroaded or good about this idea, post comments here.
Here's where this is coming from.
1. First I'll direct your attention to our marked up Roadmap for Change Word document. I made comments on this document. Lewis made comemnts in yellow.
The following particular passage from the Roadmap calls for groups to hold fewer in-person meetings at Annual and MW:
“Co-creation” – through the contribution of content (and meetings) by more than 50 different groups, as well as exhibiting companies, has created a conference characterized by exceptional variety and richness. A historically laissez faire “bottom-up” approach, however, has also resulted in a conference that seems opaque to potential attendees as well as confusing to all but the most experienced participant. It has also resulted in a vast “campus” creating logistical and budget problems for both the Association and attendees. To use just one example, during the 10:30am-noon period on Saturday at the Anaheim (2012) conference, with a projected attendance of 8,500 registrants, some 16,000 seats have been requested – in programs, discussion/interest groups and meetings. At the same time, 1,500-2,500 attendees (including those registered “exhibits-only”) are attending the exhibits. In other words, we have provided space for each attendee almost twice – assuming (unlikely) that all present are either on the exhibit floor or attending an official program/discussion/meeting. This has serious – generally negative – implications for attendees, speakers, committee chairs and discussion group conveners, exhibitors, and the overall health of the conference.
The original roadmap post with interesting comments: http://connect.ala.org/node/178761
2. If we maintain a monthly meeting schedule (conference call or virtual), perhaps we won't need so much time at Annual and MW? If we can do our virtual meetings, then membership can come to them all and participate.
3. We could hold membership meetings with all board members in attendence and conduct them as open forums with the board. We could attend to business there if really necessary.
4. I recall many steering committee II meetings being cancelled since 2008. Perhaps that's a sign that it's ok to let this meeting time go?
5. We could all leave conference / MW earlier or plan other things during that 2nd meeting time.
I will not hide how I'm voting: one meeting is better.
We spend a lot of time across both meetings listening to reports from various people, and that can better be accomplished with written reports and a brief question period. That would leave us plenty of time in one meeting to do other work. And that would leave us the time previously allocated to a second meeting to do things like attend other meetings/Council or network.
Or leave MW early!
But truly, I think we can accomplish a lot of our work in between MW and Annual and make more efficient use of our time in Seattle and Chicago and beyond.
sorry I'm late on this. Yup, one meeting is great.
1 meeting only. The 2nd meeting has been canceled more than it has been held for the past few years due to lack of quorum.
Anne L Moore
Special Collections Librarian
One meeting should be more than enough. And I'd prefer Saturday rather than Monday.
I'm okay w/one meeting, but it needs to be focused, on time, and pretty tightly reined in when people get off track and start telling stories and go off on tangents. I agree w/Peter about issuiing reports other ways. And I am hoping the virtual meetings will be successful. I won't be attending MW, so I have no preference for day/time.
I'm on the same page with everyone for having 1 meeting.
It gets tricky at annual for me as I've had back to back meetings in different locations on Sat morning, (MW isn't an issue as these meetings are held virtually for me for MW).
So I'm flexible on time for MW. I just hope to know soon so I can book appropriate flights.