Policy Council Winter Email Meeting Discussion (I)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:08:19 -0500
From: James M Lyneis <
Subject: Minutes For January 31st Meeting
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,
The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author. Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Jim
James M. Lyneis
PO Box 121
215 Landgrove Road
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested
Parties,
The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author.
Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Jim
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:30:34 -0700
From: "Malczynski, Leonard A" <
Subject: Re: Minutes For January 31st Meeting
In-Reply-To: <024501c8650e$32016980$2f01a8c0@IBMA5C53EF0044
Jim,
I used to be able to see PC notes etc. when it was on the Ventana
server. Is there any way to see them now?
Thanks,
Len
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of James M Lyneis
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:08 PM
To:
Subject: Minutes For January 31st Meeting
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,
The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author. Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Jim
James M. Lyneis
PO Box 121
215 Landgrove Road
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Jim,
I used to be able to see PC notes etc. when it was on the Ventana server. Is there any way to see them now?
Thanks,
Len
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members [mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu]
On Behalf Of James M Lyneis
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:08 PM
To:
Subject:Minutes For January 31st Meeting
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,
The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author.
Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Jim
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:40:26 -0500
From: Jay Forrester <
Subject: Re: Minutes For January 31st Meeting
In-Reply-To: <024501c8650e$32016980$2f01a8c0@IBMA5C53EF0044
Jim:
Please give us a web address for getting to the minutes. I did not find them starting from the SD Society address.
Jay
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School, MIT
Room E60-156
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 978-369-9372
Home office:
80 Deaconess Road, Suite 442
Concord, MA 01742-4173
tel: 978-369-9372
On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:08 PM, James M Lyneis wrote:
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,
The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author.
Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Jim
James M. Lyneis
PO Box 121
215 Landgrove Road
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
fax: 978-369-9372
Jim: Please give us a web address for getting to the minutes. I did not find them starting from the SD Society address. Jay
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:58:53 -0500
From: Bob Eberlein <
Subject: Re: Minutes For January 31st Meeting
In-Reply-To: <
Hi Everyone,
The minutes and all reports for this meeting are posted on the Society Web System at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb log in using your email as user id. On the user menu, under the 2008 Winter Policy Council Meeting click on the button labeled "Policy Council Menu." The draft minutes are submitted under my name - Eberlein.
If you do not see the 2008 Winder Policy Council Meeting then send an email to the office office@systemdynamics.org and Roberta will add you as a guest to the meeting.
Bob Eberlein
Jay Forrester wrote:
Jim:
Please give us a web address for getting to the minutes. I did not find them starting from the SD Society address.
Jay
On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:08 PM, James M Lyneis wrote:
>Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,
>The minutes for yesterday's face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports.Bob Eberlein is the author.
>Based on yesterday's meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Motions will be made on the Policy Council menu of the Conference Web Submission System; discussion will take place using this list serve. We will make, discuss, and vote these motions during the "Second Electronic Meeting" between now and the end of the month.
>Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
>Best regards,
>Jim
>James M. Lyneis
>PO Box 121
>215 Landgrove Road
>Weston, VT 05161
>(802) 824-4219
> <mailto:jmlyneis@verizon.net
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School, MIT
Room E60-156
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 978-369-9372
Home office:
80 Deaconess Road, Suite 442
Concord, MA 01742-4173
tel: 978-369-9372
fax: 978-369-9372
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:45:02 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: New Motions
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties:
Three motions have been placed on the PC Menu (http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb). Please review the minutes from the face-to-face meeting on 31st January and any supporting documentation for these motions. We will discuss these motions using the PC-Listserve ( ) for 7 days, and then have a voting period of 7 days (again using the PC Menu). Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion; only officers and Policy Council members can vote.
The open motions are:
100: Disband Non-operational Ad Hoc Committees
101: Approval of the 2007 Summer Policy Council Meeting Minutes (minutes are posted at http://www.systemdynamics.org/Governance.htm)
102: Increase Budget for Journal Support
As discussed in the minutes of the face-to-face meeting, we anticipate having additional motions concerning:
1.. Selection of the 2010 conference location
2.. Constituting an umbrella Awards Committee (formal motion may not be required)
3.. Size of the Dana Meadows award (consistent with Trust documents and IRS requirements)
4.. Slate of candidates for 2009
Other items that warrant attention and discussion, but will not likely need a formal motion include:
1.. Establishment of an Conference Site Selection Committee
2.. Past Program Chairs meeting / annual review of Conference Program Thread Chairs
If you have any comments on these or any other business, please post to the list serve discussion.
Thank you.
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties:
Three motions have been placed on the PC Menu <“http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb">.
Please review the minutes from the face-to-face meeting on 31st January and any supporting documentation for these motions. We will discuss these motions using the PC-Listserve <“mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu”for 7 days, and then have a voting period of 7 days (again using the PC Menu).Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion; only officers and Policy Council members can vote.
The open motions are:
100: Disband Non-operational Ad Hoc Committees
101: Approval of the 2007 Summer Policy Council Meeting Minutes (minutes are posted at http://www.systemdynamics.org/Governance.htm)
102: Increase Budget for Journal Support
As discussed in the minutes of the face-to-face meeting, we anticipate having additional motions concerning:
Selection of the 2010 conference location
Constituting an umbrella Awards Committee (formal motion may not be required)
Size of the Dana Meadows award (consistent with Trust documents and IRS requirements)
Slate of candidates for 2009
Other items that warrant attention and discussion, but will not likely need a formal motion include:
Establishment of an Conference Site Selection Committee
Past Program Chairs meeting / annual review of Conference Program Thread Chairs
If you have any comments on these or any other business, please post to the list serve discussion.
Thank you.
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:55:45 +0100
Reply-To:
From: <
Subject: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Dear members of the policy council and other interested parties, below I paste a summary of the two proposals to hold the 2010 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society in either Korea or Japan. You can find the actual proposals together with additional information as supplementary material attached to my report to the PC on the website. The conference site selection committee would very much appreciate your comments on the two proposals. Based on the discussion, we are going to make a motion for one of the two sites within the next days. Every input is very, very welcome, regarding this quite difficult choice, having two excellent proposals.
Thank you and best regards,
Andreas Größler
VP Meetings
*****************************************************
System Dynamics 2010 Proposal Summary Comparison
A key issue that should be concluded during the electronic meeting is the determination of the 2010 Conference. We have two outstanding proposals for this from Japan and Korea. To facilitate discussion the Conference Site Selection Committee (Andreas Grossler, Jim Lyneis, Bob Eberlein and Roberta Spencer) has prepared a summary comparison. We would like to have an open discussion on this issue and then, in about a week, the selection committee will make a recommendation in the form of a formal motion to be voted on electronically.
The Korea Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Gyeongju <http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/Kyongju>, Korea. The city is about 4 hours from the new Seoul airport by subway and train. The conference would be held in a large hotel with both meeting and sleeping rooms.
The Japan Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Kyoto, Japan. The city is about 1.5 hours from the Osaka airport by Train. The conference would be held at the Doshisha Business School and people would stay in area hotels.
Both proposals are strong and choosing either would give us a fine conferences. Both of the proposed cities were once the Capitals of their respective nations and contain many significant historic and cultural sites. Both have a number of buildings and shrines designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites. The following is a short summary of the apparent relative advantages of each proposal. Transportation cost and time to either Osaka or Seoul is similar for people not in Asia so the comparison is restricted to local differences.
The biggest difference is the conference style – one central hotel in Korea versus a meeting location and area hotels in Japan. There is no clear consensus on which format more people prefer. The hotel venue is easier for the Central Office to manage.
Gyeongju would be less expensive for conference attendees, with hotel rooms at $80-$150 versus $150-$300 in Kyoto and less expensive food (both for individuals and for conference related events). The hotel costs for alternate/student attendees are similar, though Gyeongju has lower cost options requiring bus travel to the conference site.
Transportation to Kyoto is more convenient with a 1.5 hour train ride versus about 4 hours by train (or by busses arranged especially for conference attendees) from Seoul’s new airport to Gyeongju. There are smaller airports closer to Gyeongju with service to, for example, Tokyo and Shanghai.
The Korean team has already lined up significant government and corporate sponsorship with preliminary commitments of $80,000. The Japan team is having discussions with potential sponsors and has received indications of $30,000 so far. The more sponsorship, clearly, the better the bottom line to the Society.
Kyoto is more famous and would probably have a bigger international draw. The lower costs in Korea, on the other hand, would probably result in more people from Asia attending.
****************************************************
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0500
From: Bob Eberlein <
Subject: Winter 2008 PC Meeting - Electronic Dicussion
In-Reply-To: <001001c86816$7469a930$
Hi Everyone,
We have had no email discussion on either the open motions or anything else that was covered in the face to face meeting held on January 31.
Perhaps everyone has read through the notes and feels that there they have nothing more to add. More likely though I suspect that some have not yet had a chance to look at the material.
It would be great to hear from every voting member of the Policy Council over the next few days, if only to say that the discussion seemed balanced and does represent your thoughts on the topics. I am including below a list of voting members below just to be sure you know who you are.
Of course if you have something to add to the discussion, voting member or not, please post that as well.
Bob Eberlein
VP Electronic Presence
President: James M. Lyneis (2008)
President Elect: Erling Moxnes (2008)
Past President: Qifan Wang (2008)
Founding President: Jay W. Forrester
Secretary: David Packer (2007 - 2008)
Vice President At Large: Joel Rahn (2007-2009)
Vice President Chapter Activities: Tim Haslett (2008-2010)
Vice President Electronic Presence: Robert L. Eberlein (2006-2008)
Vice President Finance: David F. Andersen (2008-2010)
Vice President Meetings: Andreas Größler (2007-2009)
Vice President Member Services: Deborah Campbell (2006-2008)
Vice President Publications: Deborah Lines Andersen (2006-2008)
System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Brian C. Dangerfield
Policy Council (2006-2008): Gloria Pérez Salazar, Santanu Roy, Ali Kerem Saysel, Krystyna Stave
Policy Council (2007-2009): Renan Jia, Özge Pala, Warren Tignor, Khaled Wahba
Policy Council (2008-2010): Enzo Bivona, Burak Güneralp, Imrana Umar, Lars Weber
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:35:30 +0100
From: Henk Akkermans <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
In-Reply-To: <
Dear Andreas and others,
This is what you might call a luxury problem!
Here are my personal thoughts, for what they are worth:
1. I don't think that the "logistics/financials" should go beyond "hygiene factor" consideration. One hygiene factor is the location: we have not settled as a society for the one-location/multiple location model (we talked about this during the Nijmegen Policy Council and reached the conclusion that there either model could work). Another is the level of sponsorship: the main point is not to lose money on these meetings, and if that would be our sole criterion we should never move beyond New England, so the budget is either sound or it isn't, and I understand it looks sufficiently sound on both locations.
2. Then, it becomes a matter of strategy. One strategy is to build upon existing strength of the community, the same logic that dictates we hold the conference every other year in the US or Europe, and only every now and again elsewhere. This strategy would favor the Japanese proposal, as the Japanese SD community is the strongest and most wide-spread in Asia, I think. The other strategy is to reach out to new promising areas, precisely the reason why the conference is being held outside our dominant geographies every now and again. Then, Korea has an edge as I agree that it will be cheaper and hence more attractive for Chinese system dynamicists.
3. Then, there remains the issue of personal preference. Here is a personal confession. I have great regard and admiration for the Koreans, and indeed for all of Asia, but I fell in love with Kyoto some 18 years ago, so if I were to follow my own heart...
Kind regards,
Henk Akkermans
Op 5-feb-2008, om 21:55 heeft Andreas Größler het volgende geschreven:
Dear members of the policy council and other interested parties, below I paste a summary of the two proposals to hold the 2010 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society in either Korea or Japan. You can find the actual proposals together with additional information as supplementary material attached to my report to the PC on the website. The conference site selection committee would very much appreciate your comments on the two proposals. Based on the discussion, we are going to make a motion for one of the two sites within the next days. Every input is very, very welcome, regarding this quite difficult choice, having two excellent proposals.
Thank you and best regards,
Andreas Größler
VP Meetings
*****************************************************
System Dynamics 2010 Proposal Summary Comparison
A key issue that should be concluded during the electronic meeting is the determination of the 2010 Conference. We have two outstanding proposals for this from Japan and Korea. To facilitate discussion the Conference Site Selection Committee (Andreas Grossler, Jim Lyneis, Bob Eberlein and Roberta Spencer) has prepared a summary comparison. We would like to have an open discussion on this issue and then, in about a week, the selection committee will make a recommendation in the form of a formal motion to be voted on electronically.
The Korea Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Gyeongju <http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/Kyongju>, Korea. The city is about 4 hours from the new Seoul airport by subway and train. The conference would be held in a large hotel with both meeting and sleeping rooms.
The Japan Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Kyoto, Japan. The city is about 1.5 hours from the Osaka airport by Train. The conference would be held at the Doshisha Business School and people would stay in area hotels.
Both proposals are strong and choosing either would give us a fine conferences. Both of the proposed cities were once the Capitals of their respective nations and contain many significant historic and cultural sites. Both have a number of buildings and shrines designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites. The following is a short summary of the apparent relative advantages of each proposal. Transportation cost and time to either Osaka or Seoul is similar for people not in Asia so the comparison is restricted to local differences.
The biggest difference is the conference style – one central hotel in Korea versus a meeting location and area hotels in Japan. There is no clear consensus on which format more people prefer. The hotel venue is easier for the Central Office to manage.
Gyeongju would be less expensive for conference attendees, with hotel rooms at $80-$150 versus $150-$300 in Kyoto and less expensive food (both for individuals and for conference related events). The hotel costs for alternate/student attendees are similar, though Gyeongju has lower cost options requiring bus travel to the conference site.
Transportation to Kyoto is more convenient with a 1.5 hour train ride versus about 4 hours by train (or by busses arranged especially for conference attendees) from Seoul’s new airport to Gyeongju. There are smaller airports closer to Gyeongju with service to, for example, Tokyo and Shanghai.
The Korean team has already lined up significant government and corporate sponsorship with preliminary commitments of $80,000. The Japan team is having discussions with potential sponsors and has received indications of $30,000 so far. The more sponsorship, clearly, the better the bottom line to the Society.
Kyoto is more famous and would probably have a bigger international draw. The lower costs in Korea, on the other hand, would probably Result in more people from Asia attending.
<agroe.vcf
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:44:30 -0500
From: Khalid Saeed <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
In-Reply-To: <
I am not a voting member, but I'd like to echo Henk's observations. Bottom line: Kyoto is a wicked good place for a meeting.
Khalid
Khalid Saeed, PhD
Professor of Economics and System Dynamics
Social Science and Policy Studies Department
WPI, Worcester, MA 01609
Ph: 508-831-5563
On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Henk Akkermans wrote:
Dear Andreas and others,
This is what you might call a luxury problem!
Here are my personal thoughts, for what they are worth:
1. I don't think that the "logistics/financials" should go beyond "hygiene factor" consideration. One hygiene factor is the location: we have not settled as a society for the one-location/multiple location model (we talked about this during the Nijmegen Policy Council and reached the conclusion that there either model could work). Another is the level of sponsorship: the main point is not to lose money on these meetings, and if that would be our sole criterion we should never move beyond New England, so the budget is either sound or it isn't, and I understand it looks sufficiently sound on both locations.
2. Then, it becomes a matter of strategy. One strategy is to build upon existing strength of the community, the same logic that dictates we hold the conference every other year in the US or Europe, and only every now and again elsewhere. This strategy would favor the Japanese proposal, as the Japanese SD community is the strongest and most wide-spread in Asia, I think. The other strategy is to reach out to new promising areas, precisely the reason why the conference is being held outside our dominant geographies every now and again. Then, Korea has an edge as I agree that it will be cheaper and hence more attractive for Chinese system dynamicists.
3. Then, there remains the issue of personal preference. Here is a personal confession. I have great regard and admiration for the Koreans, and indeed for all of Asia, but I fell in love with Kyoto some 18 years ago, so if I were to follow my own heart...
Kind regards,
Henk Akkermans
Op 5-feb-2008, om 21:55 heeft Andreas Gr=F6DFler het volgende geschreven:
Dear members of the policy council and other interested parties, below I paste a summary of the two proposals to hold the 2010 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society in either Korea or Japan. You can find the actual proposals together with additional information as supplementary material attached to my report to the PC on the website. The conference site selection committee would very much appreciate your comments on the two proposals. Based on the discussion, we are going to make a motion for one of the two sites within the next days. Every input is very, very welcome, regarding this quite difficult choice, having two excellent proposals.
>Thank you and best regards,
>Andreas Gr=F6DFler
>VP Meetings
>*****************************************************
>System Dynamics 2010 Proposal Summary Comparison
>A key issue that should be concluded during the electronic meeting is the determination of the 2010 Conference. We have two outstanding proposals for this from Japan and Korea. To facilitate discussion the Conference Site Selection Committee (Andreas Grossler, Jim Lyneis, Bob Eberlein and Roberta Spencer) has prepared a summary comparison. We would like to have an open discussion on this issue and then, in about a week, the selection committee will make a recommendation in the form of a formal motion to be voted on electronically.
>The Korea Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Gyeongju <http://www.lifeinkorea.com/Travel2/Kyongju>, Korea. The city is about 4 hours from the new Seoul airport by subway and train. The conference would be held in a large hotel with both meeting and sleeping rooms.
>The Japan Chapter of the System Dynamics Society proposes to host the 2010 conference in Kyoto, Japan. The city is about 1.5 hours from the Osaka airport by Train. The conference would be held at the Doshisha Business School and people would stay in area hotels.
>Both proposals are strong and choosing either would give us a fine conferences. Both of the proposed cities were once the Capitals of their respective nations and contain many significant historic and cultural sites. Both have a number of buildings and shrines designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites. The following is a short summary of the apparent relative advantages of each proposal. Transportation cost and time to either Osaka or Seoul is similar for people not in Asia so the comparison is restricted to local differences.
The biggest difference is the conference style =96 one central hotel in Korea versus a meeting location and area hotels in Japan. There is no clear consensus on which format more people prefer. The hotel venue is easier for the Central Office to manage.
Gyeongju would be less expensive for conference attendees, with hotel rooms at $80-$150 versus $150-$300 in Kyoto and less expensive food (both for individuals and for conference related events). The hotel costs for alternate/student attendees are similar, though Gyeongju has lower cost options requiring bus travel to the conference site.
Transportation to Kyoto is more convenient with a 1.5 hour train ride versus about 4 hours by train (or by busses arranged especially for conference attendees) from Seoul=92s new airport to Gyeongju. There are smaller airports closer to Gyeongju with service to, for example, Tokyo and Shanghai.
The Korean team has already lined up significant government and corporate sponsorship with preliminary commitments of $80,000. The Japan team is having discussions with potential sponsors and has received indications of $30,000 so far. The more sponsorship, clearly, the better the bottom line to the Society.
Kyoto is more famous and would probably have a bigger international draw. The lower costs in Korea, on the other hand, would probably result in more people from Asia attending.
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:38:37 -0500
From: Bob Eberlein <
Subject: Re: Winter 2008 PC Meeting - Electronic Dicussion
In-Reply-To: <
Hi Everyone,
Jay asked me to clarify the mechanics for finding and replying to discussion issues.
To look at the reports that have been posted, and the notes from the Jan 31 meeting log onto http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb once logged on you will see a section for "The 2008 Winter Policy Council Meeting" and under that a button labeled "Policy Council Menu."
If you do not see this send a note to Roberta Spencer < >and ask to be added as a guest.
Click on the menu button to see (and vote on) open motions as well as to see reports. The notes from the Jan 31 meeting are under my name Eberlein, Robert Draft Minutes of the January 31 Face to Face Meeting
All electronic discussion is being done using this email list. Thus in order to add commentary to any issue it is necessary to send an email to < >, then reply OK to the automated response you will receive. Choosing a subject that reflects the topic you are replying to will make it easier to follow the discussion.
If you have a problem posting something to the list, try sending it Roberta so she can post it for you. If you know someone who would like to be part of the discussion, but is not, have them contact Roberta so she can add them to this discussion list.
If you have questions about any of this please feel free to contact me < , Jim Lyneis < Roberta Spencer < >.
Bob eberlein
Jay Forrester wrote:
Dear Bob:
Maybe part of the lack of participation arises from not having easily available the URL and information about steps to take that allow access to the right material. I may not be the only one who does not have all channels of communication readily available.
Also, when I went to the page giving the reports and the minutes, I do not see any instruction on how to reply that deals with the threads that seem to exist.
Jay
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:03:45 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Electronic votes between meetings
Bob,
Thanks for your report on all things electronic for the SDS - you have continued to do a wonderful job making things easier for us to manage.
I am curious about the change in electronic voting on motions between regularly scheduled Winter/Summer meetings. As I understand it from your report, an "ad-hoc meeting" will need to be opened or an already adjourned meeting reopened to have votes between these meetings. How does this work?
I ask because this impacts the VP Member Services directly (perhaps even VP Chapters), as SIGs are often voted on between official meetings.
Thanks,
Deb
Bob,
Thanks for your report on all things electronic for the SDS –
you have continued to do a wonderful job making things easier for us to manage.
I am curious about the change in electronic voting on motions between regularly scheduled Winter/Summer meetings. As I understand it from your report, anad-hoc meeting’; will need to be opened or an already adjourned meeting reopened to have votes between these meetings. How does this work?
I ask because this impacts the VP Member Services directly (perhaps even VP Chapters), as SIGs are often voted on between official meetings.
Thanks,
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:03:02 -0500
From: Bob Eberlein <
Subject: Re: Electronic votes between meetings
In-Reply-To: <008701c86dba$c1d81e50$0301000a@fortuna
Hi Deb,
Good question. Procedurally what I would propose is that the motion be sent to the President then the President decide on the appropriate course of action. From a practical perspective it will probably be easier to reopen the past meeting - effectively adding an addendum vote.
In that way the minutes for the meeting could also be amended to reflect the vote. If we are close to a new meeting then opening the new meeting early might be the way to go.
Bob Eberlein
Deborah Campbell wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for your report on all things electronic for the SDS – you have continued to do a wonderful job making things easier for us to manage.
I am curious about the change in electronic voting on motions between regularly scheduled Winter/Summer meetings. As I understand it from your report, an “ad-hoc meeting” will need to be opened or an already adjourned meeting reopened to have votes between these meetings. How does this work?
I ask because this impacts the VP Member Services directly (perhaps even VP Chapters), as SIGs are often voted on between official meetings.
Thanks,
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:34:21 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Conference peer review ideas
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not.
This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced.
The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session:
1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year’s conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client; in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results – proposed and implemented – are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author’s feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can’t argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers’ workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not. This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria (‘must answer ‘yes’ to one of the following questions …’;). The discussion about criterion number 5 – will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced. The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is thelearning’; criteria relative to the others.) Here’s my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others’ work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others’ work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I’d like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on theauthor will learn from the experience’; criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler’s Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:44:44 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Athens 2008 conference
Hi everyone,
In reading the minutes from last summer's meeting, I noticed that the PC voted to establish a committee (Andreas G. and Scott J.) to "oversee the Athens conference issues and concerns".
As some of these issues do not seem to have resolved since last summer (the shortfall in sponsorships; the increased personal costs due to a change in the proposed contract with the hotel, creating a risk of lower attendance), I am curious if this committee has a report to provide.
When talking about conferences in general, there was some discussion about the need for an umbrella strategy (we win some, we lose some) and risk management planning. Has anyone taken ownership for these strategic plans?
I was feeling nervous last summer, and after reading the update on Athens, I am not feeling better.
Thanks,
Deb
In reading the minutes from last summer’s meeting, I oticed that the PC voted to establish a committee (Andreas G. and Scott J.) tooversee the Athens conference issues and concerns’;.
As some of these issues do not seem to have resolved since last summer (the shortfall in sponsorships; the increased personal costs due to a change in the proposed contract with the hotel, creating a risk of lower attendance), I am curious if this committee has a report to provide.
When talking about conferences in general, there was some discussion about the need for an umbrella strategy (we win some, we lose some) and risk management planning. Has anyone taken ownership for these strategic plans?
I was feeling nervous last summer, and after reading the update on Athens, I am not feeling better.
Thanks,
Deb
--
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:58:33 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Albuquerque 2009 conference
NextPart_000_00D9_01C86D87.BD179130"
NextPart_000_00D9_01C86D87.BD179130
Hi all,
In the report on the Albuquerque conference an issue was raised about the number of room nights that were committed to the hotel before and after the dates of the conference. Aldo and the planning team suggested several alternatives to address this issue. I'd like to both comment on some of the alternatives and ask Aldo to lead us in a discussion to help the planning team resolve the issue.
My thoughts:
I do not think it would be practical to move the PC meeting to Saturday. This suggestion has come up before, and as I recall has been considered infeasible by many on the PC.
I think the idea of encouraging people to stay over for interesting working sessions on Friday is a good one, yet would need to be actively defined and marketed.
I also think you could easily organize interesting tours (paid for by those participating) for the Friday and Saturday dates. Some of the places you listed sound great.
What are the tradeoffs? Does it make sense to find out from the hotel what they would charge us IF we made the change, so we know what we are up against?
Please tell us how we can help the planning team move forward on this issue.
Deb
Hi all,
In the report on the Albuquerque conference an issue was raised about the number of room nights that were committed to the hotel before and after the dates of the conference. Aldo and the planning team suggested several alternatives to address this issue. I’d like to both comment on some of the alternatives and ask Aldo to lead us in a discussion to help the planning team resolve the issue.
My thoughts:
I do not think it would be practical to move the PC meeting to Saturday. This suggestion has come up before, and as I recall has been considered infeasible by many on the PC.
I think the idea of encouraging people to stay over for interesting working sessions on Friday is a good one, yet would need to be actively defined and marketed.
I also think you could easily organize interesting tours (paid for by those participating) for the Friday and Saturday dates. Some of the places you listed sound great.
What are the tradeoffs? Does it make sense to find out from the hotel what they would charge us IF we made the change, so we know what we are up against?
Please tell us how we can help the planning team move forward on this issue.
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:03:59 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Conference site selection committee
Hi all,
I agree with those who have suggested we form a Conference Site Selection Committee. This would support both the VP Meetings and the Policy Council by encouraging detailed analysis to be done at the committee level rather than the PC level, improving the use of everyone's time and expertise.
Perhaps this committee could also take on the long-term planning for conference strategy (win some, lose some) and risk management as well.
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:34:14 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
In-Reply-To: <
Dear Andreas and everyone,
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question.
It appears to me that, while Kyoto has won several people's hearts in the past, mine included, strategically the Korean conference is a better fit with our selection criteria:
1) Financially and logistically superior:
- Easier for the central office to mange
- Less expensive (for the Society and the participants)
- Strong, already-committed financial sponsorship
2) Encourages people from outside our current spheres to attend due to
reasonable local costs (in this case not only from Korea, but other Asian locations)
3) Supports increased collaboration via the centralized hotel/conference location model.
I'm prepared to open my heart and experience a new location...
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:26:33 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
In-Reply-To: <010d01c86dcf$c73ed220$0301000a@fortuna
"So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question."
I forgot to say...
I don't know the answer! :)
Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Dear Andreas and everyone,
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question.
It appears to me that, while Kyoto has won several people's hearts in the past, mine included, strategically the Korean conference is a better fit with our selection criteria:
1) Financially and logistically superior:
- Easier for the central office to mange
- Less expensive (for the Society and the participants)
- Strong, already-committed financial sponsorship
2) Encourages people from outside our current spheres to attend due to reasonable local costs (in this case not only from Korea, but other Asian locations)
3) Supports increased collaboration via the centralized hotel/conference location model.
I'm prepared to open my heart and experience a new location...
Deb
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:27:46 -0800
From: Burak Guneralp <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
In-Reply-To: <000901c86dd7$168377d0$0301000a@fortuna
Hi everyone,
I agree with Deborah that the Korean option is superior to Kyoto if we consider the financial and logistical aspects. Although the ride from/to the airport is about four hours in the case of Korea, this will be a one-time round-trip. In addition, I like the idea of having both the conference and the accomodation at a single location. In case of Kyoto, if I understood correct, people would have to commute between the hotels and the conference center. Chinese chapter's willingness to contribute to the Korean conference is also something to factor in.
In short, I guess I am in favor of Gyeongju.
Burak
On Feb 12, 2008 4:26 PM, Deborah Campbell rote:
"So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question."
I forgot to say...
I don't know the answer! :)
Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Dear Andreas and everyone,
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question.
It appears to me that, while Kyoto has won several people's hearts in the past, mine included, strategically the Korean conference is a better fit with our selection criteria:
1) Financially and logistically superior:
- Easier for the central office to mange
- Less expensive (for the Society and the participants)
- Strong, already-committed financial sponsorship
2) Encourages people from outside our current spheres to attend due to reasonable local costs (in this case not only from Korea, but other Asian locations)
3) Supports increased collaboration via the centralized hotel/conference location model.
I'm prepared to open my heart and experience a new location...
Deb
Hi everyone,
I agree with Deborah that the Korean option is superior to Kyoto if we consider the financial and logistical aspects. Although the ride from/to the airport is about four hours in the case of Korea, this ill be aone-time round-trip. In addition, I like the idea of having both the conference and the accomodation at a single location. In case of Kyoto,if I understood correct,people would have to commute between the hotels and the conference center. Chinese chapter’s willingness to contribute to the Korean conference is also something to factor in.
In short, I guess I am in favor of Gyeongju.
Burak
On Feb 12, 2008 4:26 PM, Deborah Campbell wrote:
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question.; I forgot to say... I don’t know the answer! :) Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Dear Andreas and everyone,
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question. It appears to me that, while Kyoto has won several people’s hearts in the past, mine included, strategically the Korean conference is a better fit with our selection criteria: 1) Financially and logistically superior: - Easier for the central office to mange - Less expensive (for the Society and the participants) - Strong, already-committed financial sponsorship
2) Encourages people from outside our current spheres to attend due to reasonable local costs (in this case not only from Korea, but other Asian locations)
3) Supports increased collaboration via the centralized hotel/conference location model.
I’m prepared to open my heart and experience a new location...
Deb
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:04:16 +1300
From: Bob Cavana <
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
hi all,
All though i am not a voting member (or rep) on Policy Council i would like to add my comments to this discussion.
It appears that two very good cases have been proposed for the 2010 conference. I am sure that both communities would host excellent conferences.
However, i would like to support the proposal from the Korean Chapter on this occasion.
My principal reason for this support is that the last time the International System Dynamics Conference was held in Asia, it was held in Tokyo, in 1995. I was very fortunate to attend that conference, which i found to be excellent and also very enjoyable.
Now if the ISD conference goes to Tokyo in 2010, then the Korean Chapter may have to wait until 2025 to host their conference (if the past is any indication of the future!).
Under these circumsdtances, i think it would be fairer to award the 2010 conference to Korea.
all the best from NZ.
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Burak Guneralp
Sent: Wed 13/02/2008 5:27 p.m.
To:
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Hi everyone,
I agree with Deborah that the Korean option is superior to Kyoto if we consider the financial and logistical aspects. Although the ride from/to the airport is about four hours in the case of Korea, this will be a one-time round-trip. In addition, I like the idea of having both the conference and the accomodation at a single location. In case of Kyoto, if I understood correct, people would have to commute between the hotels and the conference center. Chinese chapter's willingness to contribute to the Korean conference is also something to factor in.
In short, I guess I am in favor of Gyeongju.
Burak
On Feb 12, 2008 4:26 PM, Deborah Campbell < :
"So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question."
I forgot to say...I don't know the answer! :)
Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Discussion on 2010 conference proposals
Dear Andreas and everyone,
So do we vote with our hearts or our heads? It is an important question.
It appears to me that, while Kyoto has won several people's hearts in the past, mine included, strategically the Korean conference is a better fit with our selection criteria:
1) Financially and logistically superior:
- Easier for the central office to mange
- Less expensive (for the Society and the participants)
- Strong, already-committed financial sponsorship
2) Encourages people from outside our current spheres to attend due to reasonable local costs (in this case not only from Korea, but other Asian locations)
3) Supports increased collaboration via the centralized hotel/conference location model.
I'm prepared to open my heart and experience a new location...
Deb
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:13:59 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me ( ) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett ( ). This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me ( ) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett ( "> ). This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:45:39 -0300
From: Martin Schaffernicht <
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
In-Reply-To: <00b101c86dc7$6a277770$0301000a@fortuna
Hi everyone,
I'd like to add some points to Deborah's message.
1. The possibility of grouping papers according to their stage would probably make it easier to plan which session to sit in during the conference. It would also make it easier for authors to be very clear in their papers' architecture, since it would be explicitly stated that "not complete" SD papers can be presented.
Then again, there is a connection with Debora's third point. (In the report, the five criteria for papers were in the same section as the paper typology issue.) Even though we have not defined that making a "contribution" requires a completed SD process, one can assume that the more the process has been completed, the more it is possible to speak of "contribution". A work in the early stages may well have a strong potential to contribute, but there is a difference.
I beleive that when you group papers that report "work-in-progress" into specific sessions, this may make them less attractive to a share of conference attendees who would otherwise find interest in the subject.
One alternative would be to have these papers state explicitly (in the abstract, for instance) that this is work-in-progress. This still makes session-selection easier but it does not generate "work-in-progress - ghetto sessions" (sorry for this expression). I think that this would be a good option for papers that, even though not reporting a completed process, are strong.
For the other papers, I like your proposition of a "paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium".
Would these papers still be in the proceedings? I ask this because for many of us, having their work in the proceedings is THE criterium for obtaining money from our universities.
2. About feedback to reviewers. This seems to be a delicate issue because of the lack of time of everybody. I'd find the "reviewers workshop" a good idea. I add to this that there might exist a set of illustrative examples of reviews (good ones and bad ones): in the 2007 peer review session, we've seen the difficulty to articulate criteria for goor reviews; however, we can usually tell a gooed review from a bad one. As long as this is a matter of tacit aspects, a set of examples can be helpful.
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Deborah Campbell < >:
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not.
This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced.
The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:45:10 -0700
From: "Zagonel-Santos, Aldo A" <
Subject: Re: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
In-Reply-To: <01a201c86e63$d3591ef0$
boundary=_000_1C9079C90336A64BBF5612428BC98E1F1FA8FF8F74ES04SNLNTsrns_
--_000_1C9079C90336A64BBF5612428BC98E1F1FA8FF8F74ES04SNLNTsrns_
Jim,
Thanks for the (too) generous acknowledgement. In reality, my contribution was fairly small, and I mostly have Ginny to thank for the opportunity. Indeed, helping organize and host a great conference in ABQ next year is a top priority for me (and the whole organizing committee) right now.
The Chapters can play a very important role in the livelihood of the Society, but they are still not doing so. It is crucial for people to volunteer to help make this a reality. I am stepping down because I don't think I can do justice to the task at this time. I'll be glad to volunteer again in the near future.
I have certainly learned a thing or two and will be happy to share my insights and suggestions, particularly regarding the chapter formation process, the rights and responsibilities of chapters, and reporting requirements. My main suggestion is that we simplify, standardize and automate the reporting requirements. In addition, I suggest that the reports, due immediately before the conference, be closely related to the chapter posters that are presented at the conference.
I'll upload later today these materials and suggestions to the PC list of reports:
http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
Aldo Zagonel
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members [mailto:SDS-P=
] On Behalf Of James Lyneis
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:14 AM
To:
Subject: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me ( <mailto:jmlyneis@verizon.net>) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett ( <mailto:thaslett@bigpond.net.au>). This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
<mailto:jmlyneis@verizon.net
From:List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members [mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of James Lyneis Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:14 AM To: Subject:Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me ( "> ) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett ( "> ). This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:15:28 -0700
From: "Zagonel-Santos, Aldo A" <
Subject: Re: Albuquerque 2009 conference
In-Reply-To: <00d801c86dca$cb3ad130$0301000a@fortuna
Deb,
We appreciate your attention to the 2009 Conference Update Report, and your concern to help us with the room-block issue.
At the face-to-face meeting in Worcester, we gathered feedback that the best ways to get people to come early and stay late is to offer two things:
1.
A "spill-over" day on Friday after the workshops, where SIGs can hold meetings, round-tables, and/or training that are not possible to organize and convene during the conference itself
2.
To offer attractive tours on the Saturday before the conference and the Friday following the conference
We are currently exploring the possibility of organizing an "SD Education" spill-over day in partnership with the Creative Learning Exchange and the Waters Foundation. If anyone sees this as an opportunity for their SIG to hold special meetings, please let us know. We'll do our best to accommodate any SIGs that would like to take advantage of the spill-over day.
We have, no doubt, a range of very attractive tours to choose from, including significant historical, cultural and geological sites within close proximity of Albuquerque. Perhaps in Athens we can offer a presentation to anyone who'd like to learn about these sites, and seek feedback on which ones are most attractive. In the mean time, anyone interested in receiving information on our local attractions please email me directly at <mailto:aazagon@sandia.gov>.
We're pretty confident that we can meet the room-block requirement, and will hopefully bring the PC greater reassurance about this at the Athens's meeting.
Thank you,
Aldo Zagonel
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: Albuquerque 2009 conference
Hi all,
In the report on the Albuquerque conference an issue was raised about the number of room nights that were committed to the hotel before and after the dates of the conference. Aldo and the planning team suggested several alternatives to address this issue. I'd like to both comment on some of the alternatives and ask Aldo to lead us in a discussion to help the planning team resolve the issue.
My thoughts:
I do not think it would be practical to move the PC meeting to Saturday. This suggestion has come up before, and as I recall has been considered infeasible by many on the PC.
I think the idea of encouraging people to stay over for interesting working sessions on Friday is a good one, yet would need to be actively defined and marketed.
I also think you could easily organize interesting tours (paid for by those participating) for the Friday and Saturday dates. Some of the places you listed sound great.
What are the tradeoffs? Does it make sense to find out from the hotel what they would charge us IF we made the change, so we know what we are up against?
Please tell us how we can help the planning team move forward on this issue.
Deb
We appreciate your attention to the 2009 Conference Update Report, and your concern to help us with the room-block issue.
At the face-to-face meeting in Worcester, we gathered feedback that the best ways to get people to come early and stay late is to offer two things:
A "spill-over" day on Friday after the workshops, where SIGs can hold meetings, round-tables,and/or training that are not possible to organize and convene during the conference itself
To offer attractive tours on the Saturday before the conference and the Friday following the conference
We are currently exploring the possibility of organizing an "SD Education" spill-over day in partnership with the Creative Learning Exchange and the Waters Foundation. If anyone sees this as an opportunity for their SIG to hold special meetings, please let us know. We'll do our best to accommodate any SIGs that would like to take advantage of the spill-over day.
We have, no doubt, a range of very attractive tours to choose from, including significant historical, cultural and geological sites within close proximity of Albuquerque. Perhaps in Athens we can offer a presentation to anyone who'd like to learn about these sites, and seek feedback on which ones are most attractive. In the mean time, anyone interested in receiving information on our local attractions please email me directly at < >.
We're pretty confident that we can meet the room-block requirement, and will hopefully bring the PC greater reassurance about this at the Athens's meeting.
Thank you,
Aldo Zagonel
From:List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Deborah Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:59 PM
To:
Subject:Albuquerque 2009 conference
In the report on the Albuquerque conference an issue was raised about the number of room nights that were committed to the hotel before and after the dates of the conference. Aldo and the planning team suggested several alternatives to address this issue. I’d like to both comment on some of the alternatives and ask Aldo to lead us in a discussion to help the planning team resolve the issue.
My thoughts:
I do not think it would be practical to move the PC meeting to Saturday. This suggestion has come up before, and as I recall has been considered infeasible by many on the PC.
I think the idea of encouraging people to stay over for interesting working sessions on Friday is a good one, yet would need to be actively defined and marketed.
I also think you could easily organize interesting tours (paid for by those participating) for the Friday and Saturday dates. Some of the places you listed sound great.
What are the tradeoffs? Does it make sense to find out from the hotel what they would charge us IF we made the change, so we know what we are up against?
Please tell us how we can help the planning team move forward on this issue.
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:15:56 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Re: Assistant VP for Chapter Activities
In-Reply-To:
For anyone potentially interested in this position, one very real opportunity here, brought up in the Dues Committee, is to make use of the new dues structure. Now that we have a flexible structure, there can be proactive awareness-building of it, to encourage the formation of chapters that have not been able to form before because of Society membership constraints. This is exciting!
Deb
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Zagonel-Santos, Aldo A
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Jim,
Thanks for the (too) generous acknowledgement. In reality, my contribution was fairly small, and I mostly have Ginny to thank for the opportunity.
Indeed, helping organize and host a great conference in ABQ next year is a top priority for me (and the whole organizing committee) right now.
The Chapters can play a very important role in the livelihood of the Society, but they are still not doing so. It is crucial for people to volunteer to help make this a reality. I am stepping down because I don't think I can do justice to the task at this time. I'll be glad to volunteer again in the near future.
I have certainly learned a thing or two and will be happy to share my insights and suggestions, particularly regarding the chapter formation process, the rights and responsibilities of chapters, and reporting requirements. My main suggestion is that we simplify, standardize and automate the reporting requirements. In addition, I suggest that the reports, due immediately before the conference, be closely related to the chapter posters that are presented at the conference.
I'll upload later today these materials and suggestions to the PC list of reports:
http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
Aldo Zagonel
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of James Lyneis
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:14 AM
To: SDS-P
Subject: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me ( ) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett ( ). This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
For anyone potentially interested in this position, one very real opportunity here, brought up in the Dues Committee, is to make use of the new dues structure. Now that we have a flexible structure, there can be proactive awareness-building of it, to encourage the formation of chapters that have not been able to form before because of Society membership constraints. This is exciting!
Deb
To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of Zagonel-Santos, Aldo A
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Assistant VP for Chapter Activities
Thanks for the (too) generous acknowledgement. In reality, my contribution was fairly small, and I mostly have Ginny to thank for the opportunity. Indeed, helping organize and host a great conference in ABQ next year is a top priority for me (and the whole organizing committee) right now.
The Chapters can play a very important role in the livelihood of the Society, but they are still not doing so. It is crucial for people to volunteer to help make this a reality. I am stepping down because I don't think I can do justice tothe task at this time. I'll be glad to volunteer again in the near future.
I have certainly learned a thing or two and will be happy to share my insights and suggestions, particularly regarding the chapter formation process, the rights and responsibilities of chapters, and reporting requirements. My main suggestion is that we simplify, standardizeandautomate the reporting requirements. In addition, I suggest that the reports, due immediately before the conference, beclosely related to the chapter posters that are presented at the conference.
I'll upload later today these materials and suggestions to the PC list of reports:
<a href=3D"http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb">http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb</a
Aldo Zagonel
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of James Lyneis
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:14 AM
To:
Subject: Assistant VP for ChapterActivities
Dear Policy Council Members,
After several years of service as Assistant VP Chapter Activities, Aldo Zagonel-Santos is stepping down to concentrate on the 2009 conference. On behalf of the Society, I'd like to thank Aldo for the excellent work he did, and look forward to seeing the results of his and others efforts on the 2009 Conference. Thank you, Aldo.
We therefore have an open position as AVP Chapter Activities. If anyone on the current policy council is interested, please get in touch with me (<a href=3D"mailto:jmlyneis@verizon.net"> </a>) and VP Chapter Activities Tim Haslett (<a href=3D"mailto:thaslett@bigpond.net.au"> </a>).
This is an excellent opportunity to get more involved with Society business. If I do not hear from anyone on the PC in a week or so, I will open up the offer to other Society members.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyneis
President
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:13:57 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: Motion on Awards
Dear Policy Council and Other Interested Parties,
A motion regarding the offering of awards by Society organizations, and their announcement at the conference, has been posted to the Policy Council Menu. The Awards Committee feels that this motion strikes the proper balance between recognition of award recipients (and award sponsors), maintaining standards in the face of increasing numbers of proposed awards, and time allocated to awards at the conference. The proposed motion reads:
"Subject to the approval of the Awards Committee, SIGs and Chapters may give one or two awards for best work during their scheduled meetings at the annual ISDC. These awards will be announced briefly at one of the plenary sessions used for awards and special announcements. A representative of each SIG/Chapter with award(s) to announce will be allowed a maximum of 2 minutes total (whether it is one award or two) to describe the award criteria, the prize money and sponsor if any, and the winning work(s). Other approved award givers (contributors, patrons) will have similar allowances for presentation during one of the plenary sessions."
To discuss this motion, send an email to , then reply OK to the automated response you will receive. Putting "SIG Awards Motion" in the title of your email to will make it easier to follow the discussion.
To vote on this motion:
1.. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2.. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3.. Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Dear Policy Council and Other Interested Parties,
A motion regarding the offering of awards by Society organizations, and their announcement at the conference, has been posted to the Policy Council Menu.The Awards Committee feels that this motion strikes the proper balance between recognition of award recipients (and award sponsors), maintaining standards in the face of increasing numbers of proposed awards, and time allocated to awards at the conference.The proposed motion reads: Subject to the approval of the Awards Committee, SIGs and Chapters may give one or two awards for best work during their scheduled meetings at the annual ISDC. These awards will be announced briefly at one of the plenary sessions used for awards and special announcements. A representative of each SIG/Chapter with award(s) to announce will be allowed a maximum of 2 minutes total (whether it is one award or two) to describe the award criteria, the prize money and sponsor if any, and the winning work(s).Other approved award givers (contributors, patrons) will have similar allowances for presentation during one of the plenary sessions."
To discuss this motion, send an email to <"mailto:SDS-PC@ , then reply OK to the automated response you will receive. Putting SIG Awards Motion in the title of your email to will make it easier to follow the discussion.
To vote on this motion:
<A href=3D"http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb"color=3D#800080>http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb</A
Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
[more]