On 3 October 2014 10:56, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Tijani, I understand. As I previously said, if there is support for your position, we probably need to make sure it is acceptable in case there is a dispute.
TO SUMMARIZE:
1. We have general agreement that de-certification votes should be standard open votes.
2. We have general agreement that how ALAC members vote on certification motions should not be published.
3. We have some level of agreement that in the case of a dispute, staff and Chair can access the details of how people voted to allow a summary statement to be created on why the request for accreditation did not succeed. However, there is some disagreement with this.
I'm not sure that summary is accurate. Based on my proposal -- with which you (Alan) and many others agreed -- is that in the vast majority of cases where the RALO advice is clear, the ALAC certification vote remains open. *That is the opposite of what you have in point #2 above.* Based on the emails to date, only Tijani has expressed the view that all certification votes should be closed. There is certainly NOT general agreement on that, I oppose it myself. Indeed, some (including myself and Raf) understand that my proposal -- to close the votes *only* for those ALS applications for which RALO advice is conflicted -- is a difficult compromise, since the preference is to be totally open. - Evan