The Post-1945 Music Analysis Interest Group is a discursive space for scholars of music after 1945, with an emphasis on the modernist, experimental, and avant-garde. Through its annual meetings and online communications, the group aims to strengthen, support, and develop its members’ ideas and sense of community. It also seeks to bring attention to and foster scholarship on post-1945 music both within the Society for Music Theory and in music scholarship at large.

Please comment on revised by-laws

5 replies, 4 voices Last updated by Antares Boyle 5 years, 4 months ago
Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • 14 November 2020 at 12:07 pm EST #40068

      Antares Boyle
      Participant
      @antaresboyle

      Hello everyone, thanks for all the great discussion at the business meeting! I’ve uploaded a revised version of our by-laws draft for your comments. You can also comment directly on the document here. In particular, please take a look at the two highlighted statements, which were the subject of some discussion at our meeting.

      Please stay tuned for more meeting follow-up later! Once discussion of the by-laws is complete, you will have an opportunity to vote to ratify them, which we will combine with our post-meeting survey.

      -Tara (and Laura)

    • 15 November 2020 at 10:22 am EST #40084

      Robert Hasegawa
      Participant
      @roberthasegawa

      Thanks for these revised by-laws, Tara and Laura! I suggested one small wording change and also added a comment about the quorum… it occurs to me that a 5% quorum in a group of this size could easily mean just two or three people! I don’t feel strongly about this if there’s a good reason to stick with 5%, but perhaps a larger quorum of 20%-25% might better represent the interests of the interest group?

      • 16 November 2020 at 8:28 pm EST #40123

        Laura Emmery
        Participant
        @lauraemmery

        Thanks, Bob. Yes, we thought about this, too. I borrowed the quorum percentage from the Pop Music IG, which makes more sense for them since their membership is large (of course, nothing compares to our FB page membership 😀  )

        We could definitely increase ours to 20%-25%, granted people vote and stay engaged with the IG issues.

        Laura

    • 18 November 2020 at 6:12 pm EST #40164

      Antares Boyle
      Participant
      @antaresboyle

      Hi Bob,

      Thanks for these comments! I agree that changing it to a larger percentage makes sense. How about 20%?

      If anyone else has comments or suggestions, please feel free to weigh in!

      Tara

    • 18 November 2020 at 9:14 pm EST #40166

      Noah Kahrs
      Participant
      @nkahrs

      I think it’s worth asking how many responses you had to the survey last year—if 20% of the average of the last two meetings works out to be more people than responded, that would presumably cause some problems.

    • 18 November 2020 at 9:19 pm EST #40167

      Antares Boyle
      Participant
      @antaresboyle

      Good point! We had 21 responses last year. That’s 29% of our HC membership, and I would guess the average attendance at meetings is lower. (Although I suppose if we are going to use attendance numbers as a metric I had better make sure we can find those numbers… using the HC membership would certainly be a bit easier!)

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.