The debate over Cilip’s governance seems to have generated a fair bit of discussion, point and counter-point, and unfortunately the occasional personal attack and name calling. On a positive note most of this is healthy and democratic and highlights how strongly members feel about the future direction of Cilip. Best that members disagree and generate discussion rather than no one shows any interest at all.
Tom Roper’s blog has several (so far) posts about the governance review and I would urge people to read the comments section with counter-arguments being made by Martyn Wade, Barbara Band, and Phil Bradley among others, as well as comments in support of Tom’s own viewpoint.
Barbara Band has written a spirited defence of the review on her blog. It’s a genuine, heartfelt post with lots to agree with, although, again, it’s worth reading the comments section as not everyone is in favour.
There are many comments on JISCMail, although I do feel some of the comments aimed at Frances Hendrix have been rather harsh and seem little more than personal attacks. Perhaps we all need to remember that professional courtesy goes a long way and that it is the idea that should be attacked, not the individual.
There are comments on the LinkedIn Cilip group section and I am sure that I have missed lots on Twitter about the issue.
The details about the CILIP Big Day and AGM 2014 is online, with a rather interesting programme outlined. And it would be good if this issue meant a big turnout of members on the day. In fact perhaps Cilip needs to consider a contentious issue each year to encourage a large turn out!
It looks like this debate has a long way to go yet, with more to be written and said before it comes down to the vote. To me this is a good thing, as it shows an interest and regard by members for what their professional body is doing. After all, surely the worst feedback is indifference.