Hi all,

Long time listener first time commenter (on this discussion):

Just so we’re all on the same page, it's not ‘next year’s presidential ballot’, it’s *next week*. If you’ve got ideas for the future of the ASC, please make sure you nominate.

The AGM will be available online, probably via a Google Hangout on Air. The details for that will be confirmed soon.

Finally, just a brief comment on the code of ethics / professionalisation. Rod and I canvassed opinions on these matters earlier in the year, and though much of the momentum then hit a roadblock, there is stuff of value that I’ll table at the AGM. In general, there is clear support for a code of ethics, but without procedures for censuring (expelling?) those who break such a code then we have more of (to quote Pirates of the Caribbean) a guideline. This may become particularly tricky when dealing with members to communicate complex or contentious science (GM or Climate Change anyone?) that might buck the weight of evidence. 

In terms of people’s views on professionalisation (again, I’ll write more on this for the AGM, apologies for not doing it here but sadly no time), there is support for a wide range of things, but this does not necessarily translate to wide support for specific things. As the discussion here has clearly shown over the last few days, there are quite a few different things that people want of the ASC, and consensus doesn’t appear very close at all...

Finally finally, do you want to use new technology to discuss science communication? Do you want to ‘hang out’ with other science communicators to discuss science communication? You might relish the *all video* *free* live on air hangout that is SCOM BOMB. See this week’s at http://nofunnybusiness.net/2013/11/scom-bomb-who-reviews-the-reviewers/. Every week on Thursday afternoon at 3pm. You could also contribute your thoughts on other science communication matters at No Funny Business.


Dr Will J Grant

Graduate Studies Convener | Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science
The Australian National University | Physics Link Building, Building 38A | Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
e: will.grant@anu.edu.au | p: +61 2 6125 0241 | f: +61 2 6125 8991
calendar | twitter | skype: WillJ99 | web
Cricos Provider# 00120C

On 18 Nov 2013, at 1:23 pm, Tom Dixon <tom@econnect.com.au> wrote:

Interesting discussions, indeed, and thanks for the clarifications from Kali and the office.

As with many volunteer organisations (and, indeed, democracies), I believe the direction of the ASC is guided by its most vocal members, and those who step up to the challenge of leadership. And of course, those who win the vote.

In the 'age of membership' debate, Ghandi's words "Be the change you wish to see" seem to ring more true than ever before.

I look forward to next year's presidential ballot.


Tom Dixon
p 07 3846 7111 
m 0410 173 766
t @EconnectTom

-----Original Message-----
From: ASC-list [mailto:asc-list-bounces@lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan Kirk
Sent: Monday, 18 November 2013 12:11 PM
To: asc-list@lists.asc.asn.au
Subject: [ASC-list] Embracing technology

Just a couple of points.

The executive, the branch coordinators, the people who attend the conference every year.  You're lucky.  You've developed relationships with your peers because you've had the opportunity to work together.  This, on its own, won't make an organisation prosper but its gives you a connection that probably means you will renew your membership every year.

But for those members who may be financially or geographically challenged, this is not a reality. While technology will not replace face to face meetings, for those of us, like me, who can't get to branch meetings or AGM's we need different interactions.  We need forums, lists, SKYPE, video, and functioning websites, to help us feel a part of this organisation.  It doesn't really matter what venue or media is used to have our say.  It just matters that our input is valued. I too feel the same as lee:

"I absolutely did not expect people to be okay with criticism - no one likes it, and we're all only human. But what I did expect was some actual rationality and professionalism. What I, and the others who have commented, have gotten instead is a disproportionate amount of issue dodging, changes of subject, condescension, defensiveness and snark. Cut it out - it's not deserved, appropriate or welcome."

And I would add I'm disappointed that it was taken as criticism instead of
member feedback.   

You will never convince me on the business model for the conference but I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here.  It seems a few things are set in stone.  Which brings me to funding.  AusSMC seems to be able to find a few nuggets in the government coffers to do some really exciting and interesting things for its publics, and I see some of our members also don't have any trouble finding a few themselves.  Why are we not doing some serious grant writing? Is this a way to fund the next conference? Sponsorship, what a novel ideal.  Yes that was sarcasm.  Sorry.

Can we please make sure that all of our input is put into an agenda for the next AGM, particularly those suggestions put in the last email by Julian and Kali.  Also the finalisation of the code of ethics.

Can we also get this AGM live so that we can have a voice.  This is another area where I feel completely isolated.  Who is putting their hand up for presidency?  Do we know?


ASC-list mailing list

ASC-list mailing list