[Sigcabinet] SIG Member and SIG Publication awards

[Phillip M Edwards]

I'm for option #1 as well. I agree that each nominee seems deserving of
their respective awards. -Phil

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:18:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00), swarwick at sprynet.com wrote:
> I'm for number one as well.  Whenever I see an announcement of any
extended
> time period for a CFP or nominations that the original pool was
> insufficient and wonder if I would want to participate in something that
> can't attract sufficient interest or submissions of quality.  Not to
> mention that I like fast and easy.
> 
> Shelly
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: KT Vaughan <ktlv at email.unc.edu>
>>Sent: Aug 17, 2010 10:56 AM
>>To: Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org
>>Subject: [Sigcabinet] SIG Member and SIG Publication awards
>>
>>Hi SIG Cab Steering Cte!
>>
>>Deadlines for the SIG awards were yesterday.  I'm pleased to report that 
>>we got five SIG annual reports/ SIG of the Year nominations, and several 
>>of them look really strong.  There's a separate jury for that, so you 
>>don't have to worry about evaluating them.
>>
>>The Steering committee is supposed to jury the Member and Publication 
>>awards.  This year we have only one nomination for each of those.  SIG 
>>USE nominated their 10th anniversary retrospective issue for the 
>>Publication; I nominated Barrie Hayes (SIG DL Chair) for Member.  
>>Obviously I will have to recuse myself from discussions of the member 
>>award.  I will be sending you email from the Softconf system so you can 
>>log in and view the two packets.
>>
>>We have two options at this time:
>>1: Take the nominations that we have, ensure that they are deserving of 
>>the awards (imho, yes, but I'm clearly biased on one), and move on with 
>>our lives.
>>2: Extend the nominations period another two weeks, and deal with it 
>>after Labor Day.
>>
>>My inclination is for #1, if only because it gets this particular job 
>>done with so we can proceed with other things.  Discussion?
>>KT