Re: CCCC Standing Group Application

[Edwards, Mike]

Well, that's unfortunate. They seem to be pretty clear on what needs to be done in re-applying, though, so that's at least a little bit of a positive. I sure wish they'd shared the successful application with us beforehand.

ME
--
Mike Edwards, Ph.D.
http://www.vitia.org/
Assistant Professor, English Department
Washington State University

Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy
Topoi Section Editor

Co-Chair, CCCC Task Force on Student Veterans

On Apr 23, 2013, at 1:48 PM, "Suchor, Kristen" <KSu...@NCTE.ORG> wrote:

> Please see the letter below from CCCC Chair Chris Anson regarding your Standing Group application. Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Best wishes,
> Kristen Suchor
> CCCC Administrative Liaison
>
> ************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> April 23, 2013
>
> Dear Mike Edwards,
>
> Thank you very much for submitting an application to the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) for Standing Group status on behalf of the Intellectual Property Caucus. We appreciate your patience during the CCCC Officers' decision-making process.
>
> I regret to inform you that the Intellectual Property Caucus was not granted Standing Group status. The CCCC Officers believe that the activities of your group are truly important to the work of the organization, and very much appreciated the coordination between the caucus and the IP Committee. They also wanted a little more information about the future relationship between a new Standing Group and the work of that Committee. They also didn't see enough evidence of consecutive years worth of activity (only the date of founding); nor did they find a clear process for the election and rotation of officers (the methods of appointing a chair and junior chair are not clear, and since no election is stipulated, the Standing Group may not have a process for full representation). Officers also weren't sure when the two roundtables are to be conducted, and the conduct of the business meetings should clearly explain the goals of representing CCCC membership. In short, the proposal lacks sufficient detail in its current form. Please refer to the sample Standing Group proposal to get a sense of what would constitute sufficient detail and documentation for a successful application. The sample is at: http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/samplesuccessfulapp.pdf
>
> On behalf of the CCCC Officers and the CCCC membership, we thank you once again for submitting your application and wish all of you the best of luck as the group continues to pursue its interests. Should you wish to submit a revised application, we welcome you to do so. Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris M. Anson
> Chair, CCCC

[Karen Lunsford]

Does this decision have any impact on the IP Caucus proposal? Karen

Quoting "Edwards, Mike" <mike.e...@wsu.edu>:

> Well, that's unfortunate. They seem to be pretty clear on what needs
> to be done in re-applying, though, so that's at least a little bit
> of a positive. I sure wish they'd shared the successful application
> with us beforehand.
>
> ME
> --
> Mike Edwards, Ph.D.

--
Karen Lunsford, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Writing
Coordinator, Writing in the Disciplines
Director, Ph.D. Emphasis in Writing Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
klun...@writing.ucsb.edu

[Stedman, Kyle D]

Disappointing, right? But in terms of the proposal for the caucus itself, I think we'll proceed the same way we usually do. Right? This week, I'll send a link to a Google Doc this week with what I have so far, and everyone will continue to volunteer for roundtables.

The biggest difference in our plans in general is that we won't have a featured session. Yes, that takes away some of the pressure to offer the bestest-ever featured session (which was worrying me, given the small number of volunteers for it)--but it doesn't mean we can't still offer a roundtable on "openness"--though it's unclear if we would be able to call it "sponsored by the IP caucus." But the only people I've heard interested in that are Charlie and Laurie, so I don't have big hopes unless someone wants to dive in, take the lead, and recruit those who don't have plans to submit proposals for other speaking roles.

It's a similar boat for the workshop. I have some email feelers out about if we want to resubmit a workshop again (which I'd like to do, even more than I'd like to organize the "sharing stories" workshop I've described--and workshop leaders *can* be considered for other speaking roles at C's), but our standing committee status shouldn't affect that one way or the other.

Does this sound right? Am I missing something?

Kyle

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Jeffrey Galin]

I doubt it karen.  Honestly,  i dont think this set back is a big deal.  It should not change anything.   .  In fact Adam recently told me that the sigs are not going to get automatic presentations. We just need to make sure the caucus will run as it always has.
Cheers,

--

---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-property-caucus+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Wendy Austin]

I agree with you, Jeff. It's probably not a major deal, and it DOES take some of the pressure off having the "best-est" featured session ever. We should, however, IMHO, plan a lot of cool connections for the C's the Day game, if they are doing it again this coming year. I really enjoyed that this year and having not gone to CCCC for the previous 2 years, I didn't realize it wasn't a brand new thing. This I learned by going onto twitter and then thinking I'm reading tweets about CCCC 2013, when actually those tweets were about the one in Atlanta (2011?), which is when they started it, I presume. Anyway, if we let people know that being at the Caucus Wed (is it going to be Wed or Sat.? I'm not sure I'm up on all the messages yet ) will get them some "points" or "cards" or whatever, maybe they'll make an extra effort to go to that.

Wendy Austin

--
 
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com.

[Kyle Stedman]

I was thinking about C's the Day earlier today, actually. I'm not sure there's much of an inherent connection between the two communities, but I love the idea of (at the very least) suggesting that a quest or two could be fulfilled there.

(Plus, we have 3 former winners who regularly attend the caucus.)

Thanks for chiming in!

Kyle

On 04/25/2013 04:41 PM, Wendy Austin wrote:

I agree with you, Jeff. It's probably not a major deal, and it DOES take some of the pressure off having the "best-est" featured session ever. We should, however, IMHO, plan a lot of cool connections for the C's the Day game, if they are doing it again this coming year. I really enjoyed that this year and having not gone to CCCC for the previous 2 years, I didn't realize it wasn't a brand new thing. This I learned by going onto twitter and then thinking I'm reading tweets about CCCC 2013, when actually those tweets were about the one in Atlanta (2011?), which is when they started it, I presume. Anyway, if we let people know that being at the Caucus Wed (is it going to be Wed or Sat.? I'm not sure I'm up on all the messages yet ) will get them some "points" or "cards" or whatever, maybe they'll make an extra effort to go to that.

Wendy Austin

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Jeffrey Galin <jeffre...@gmail.com> wrote:

I doubt it karen.  Honestly,  i dont think this set back is a big deal.  It should not change anything.   .  In fact Adam recently told me that the sigs are not going to get automatic presentations. We just need to make sure the caucus will run as it always has.
Cheers,

On Apr 24, 2013 11:07 AM, "Karen Lunsford" <klun...@writing.ucsb.edu> wrote:

Does this decision have any impact on the IP Caucus proposal?   Karen




Quoting "Edwards, Mike" <mike.e...@wsu.edu>:

Well, that's unfortunate. They seem to be pretty clear on what needs to be done in re-applying, though, so that's at least a little bit of a positive. I sure wish they'd shared the successful application with us beforehand.

ME
--
Mike Edwards, Ph.D.

--
Karen Lunsford, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Writing
Coordinator, Writing in the Disciplines
Director, Ph.D. Emphasis in Writing Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
klun...@writing.ucsb.edu



--

---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
 
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Wendy Austin]

I have quite a few cards actually from this time. I was totally psyched to play that. What a neat idea!

Very fun!

Wendy

[Lewis, Lynn]

A good friend of mine is one of the creators of C's the Day and I would be happy to contact here on behalf of caucus if that would be useful. Any thoughts or ideas on how we might utilize C's the Day would be helpful. Great idea!

Lynn

Lynn C. Lewis
Assistant Professor
Rhetoric and Professional Writing
English Department
Oklahoma State University
205 Morrill Hall
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078
________________________________________
From: intellectual-p...@googlegroups.com [intellectual-p...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Kyle Stedman [ks14...@rockford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:58 PM
To: intellectual-p...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: CCCC Standing Group Application

I was thinking about C's the Day earlier today, actually. I'm not sure there's much of an inherent connection between the two communities, but I love the idea of (at the very least) suggesting that a quest or two could be fulfilled there.

(Plus, we have 3 former winners who regularly attend the caucus.)

Thanks for chiming in!

Kyle

On 04/25/2013 04:41 PM, Wendy Austin wrote:
I agree with you, Jeff. It's probably not a major deal, and it DOES take some of the pressure off having the "best-est" featured session ever. We should, however, IMHO, plan a lot of cool connections for the C's the Day game, if they are doing it again this coming year. I really enjoyed that this year and having not gone to CCCC for the previous 2 years, I didn't realize it wasn't a brand new thing. This I learned by going onto twitter and then thinking I'm reading tweets about CCCC 2013, when actually those tweets were about the one in Atlanta (2011?), which is when they started it, I presume. Anyway, if we let people know that being at the Caucus Wed (is it going to be Wed or Sat.? I'm not sure I'm up on all the messages yet ) will get them some "points" or "cards" or whatever, maybe they'll make an extra effort to go to that.
Wendy Austin

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Jeffrey Galin <jeffre...@gmail.com<mailto:jeffre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I doubt it karen. Honestly, i dont think this set back is a big deal. It should not change anything. . In fact Adam recently told me that the sigs are not going to get automatic presentations. We just need to make sure the caucus will run as it always has.
Cheers,

On Apr 24, 2013 11:07 AM, "Karen Lunsford" <klun...@writing.ucsb.edu<mailto:klun...@writing.ucsb.edu>> wrote:
Does this decision have any impact on the IP Caucus proposal? Karen

Quoting "Edwards, Mike" <mike.e...@wsu.edu<mailto:mike.e...@wsu.edu>>:

Well, that's unfortunate. They seem to be pretty clear on what needs to be done in re-applying, though, so that's at least a little bit of a positive. I sure wish they'd shared the successful application with us beforehand.

ME
--
Mike Edwards, Ph.D.



--
Karen Lunsford, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Writing
Coordinator, Writing in the Disciplines
Director, Ph.D. Emphasis in Writing Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara

klun...@writing.ucsb.edu<mailto:klun...@writing.ucsb.edu>

--

---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com<mailto:intellectual-property-caucus%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com<mailto:intellectual-property-caucus%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com<mailto:intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com>.