1. Aims and objectives

The aims of the Ad Hoc group with respect to conferences are to provide a framework within which related groups in the general Ad Hoc domain can share conference resources to the greatest extent possible, with four chief goals:

• to create intellectual synergies and increase opportunities for interdisciplinary interaction through shared conference events
• to avoid scheduling conflict or competition and proliferation of essentially similar, unsustainable small-scale conferences
• to achieve economies of scale in conference planning and scheduling and reduce drain on the administrative resources of each group
• to improve the quality of the conferences in this domain by increasing their international breadth (for instance, by addressing the problems of translation/interpretation and multilingualism)

2. Background

A. Diversity of conferences

Prior to any intervention by the Ad Hoc group, the broad humanities computing community was being served by a growing number of conferences, of which the ALLC/ACH joint conference is of central relevance here, but also including Digital Resources in the Humanities (DRH), possibly Digital Arts and Culture (DAC), and other occasional conferences or workshops which arose from some specific topic or opportunity, such as those sponsored by NINCH. There were also conferences of relevance to this community which have not participated in the Ad Hoc discussions (e.g. the Hypertext and Digital Libraries conferences, sponsored by the ACM). These will not be considered here.

B. ACH/ALLC Conference protocol

The ALLC/ACH conference protocol made some provision for other related organizations, by allowing session proposals by allied organizations, and by encouraging parallel conferences at the same location where feasible. This provision was better than nothing, but was unsatisfactory in two ways:

• by placing the ACH/ALLC as the "owner" of the conference, it explicitly marginalized the participation of other organizations, which discouraged them from making ALLC/ACH their primary conference meeting (though they might take advantage of it to increase their exposure). It therefore failed to reduce the total number of conferences.
• by failing to include related organizations at the infrastructural level, this provision achieved no economies of scale and in fact increased the organizational overhead of the conference without bringing in additional resources.

3. Strategies for improvement

Several strategies for improvement were considered, as follows:

A. Streamline and improve the existing ACH/ALLC arrangement

• add more explicit provisions (either to the conference protocol or to the practical guidelines) for soliciting, reviewing, and scheduling allied organization sessions
• add provision for financial contribution by the allied organizations
• add provision for internationalization, translation/interpretation and multilingualism

B. Keep the ALLC/ACH framework but expand to include another organization/conference (e.g. DRH)

• modify conference protocol to include an additional sponsoring organization
• keep the existing provisions of the protocol except where they are clearly contraindicated
• add provision for internationalization, translation/interpretation and multilingualism

C. Create a new conference framework for the entire Ad Hoc group, or most of it

• perhaps use the existing (revised) ACH/ALLC protocol as a basis
• the group of official sponsoring organizations (if they still exist as separate entities) might logically include ALLC, ACH, TEI, NINCH, and the rubric represented by DRH, but there may also be a wider group of existing conferences that wish to be included here (see register in 2.A above); one question to be addressed is the extent to which these organizations would wish to retain a degree of identity and autonomy (and hence representation) within the larger structure. However, if what is envisioned is a kind of federation with regional and perhaps disciplinary chapters, that might provide a logic for conference organization as well. In fact, the new conference framework might result not in a single unified conference, but rather in a set of conferences which were more explicitly coordinated as to time and place, so as to avoid timing conflicts and duplication. Harold suggests the possibility that there might still be a large international conference representing the entire organization, which could move among the various continents represented (as now), but that it would be supplemented by chapter-based conferences which might exploit disciplinary or geographical specificity.
• include provision for internationalization, translation/interpretation and multilingualism
• some areas of possible synergy to be exploited: consider coordinating or consolidating the publication of proceedings: share formats and metadata, create a single unified collection of proceedings/abstracts; use a common submission format (and perhaps provide a DTD); publish the calls for papers in a single place and in a common format. (Some of these points produce synergies which benefit the participant as well, which is a good thing: it is important to minimize the overhead for members in participating in conferences.)

4. Outcomes

Given that the ADHO discussions have led to bringing the participating organizations together under one umbrella, option C above seemed like the most appropriate choice for the long term. It allows for maximum participation at each conference by the new IFDiSH community, and it encourages a new look at the kind of conference and review protocol that is appropriate for this new meta-organization, rather than assuming that the existing arrangements can be tweaked into an appropriate shape. The decision was made, therefore, to pursue option C in the long term. Revisions to the conference protocol have been undertaken, and over the next several years the new IFDiSH organization will make strong efforts to address the other issues identified as priorities.

Particularly high priority should be given to addressing the internationalization/multilingualism issue, which is a constant in all three options and has high stakes attached. Successful handling of multilingualism is crucial to our credibility as an international scholarly organization, and also to our ability to attract the membership (not just in numbers, but in breadth of constituency) that the organization will need in order to thrive. The goal should be to create an organization within which there are (at a minimum) significantly reduced barriers to scholarly communication (the goal ofzero barriers is highly desirable but may be very difficult to achieve), and in which the collaborative atmosphere that has been the hallmark of ACH/ALLC can be extended to speakers of languages other than English. The goal should also be to avoid at all costs the creation of separate organizations for groups which find themselves excluded for linguistic reasons from the larger organization. The existence of such groups could be taken as prima facie evidence that greater efforts need to be made...

Finally, it may be useful to mention here a couple of points that have arisen during the review of the conference protocols, since these will also be important for the new framework:

• advance planning and careful timetables are essential to ensure that conference programs and keynote speakers are set well in advance. This advance planning gives the conference organizers maximum leeway to economize and optimize: by making room and equipment reservations, lodging arrangements, travel arrangements for speakers, and the like, while choices are stil flexible and prices are low. It also ensures that the volunteers (e.g. paper reviewers, program committee, local organizer) on whom the conference organization depends are not put under painful time pressure which saps their enthusiasm and makes them less willing to take up this burden year after year
• the reviewing process (and perhaps the paper solicitation process as well) needs to be given careful thought and scrutiny to enhance the quality and subject range of papers submitted and accepted. This has been a recurring problem and one which requires a systematic, long-term solution. This topic is closely related to that of recruitment (both of younger scholars and of scholars from other languages and disciplines).

5. Financial implications

The financial implications for the conference are not as far-reaching as one might imagine, since the conference is funded entirely by fees and by the local host institution. Increased participation (resulting from a larger community base) would improve the financial basis for the conference, since the overhead costs are largely fixed and the incremental costs scale up fairly smoothly. (We are assuming here that the conference will not increase by an order of magnitude, which might alter its basic arrangements, e.g. by requiring a much larger and more expensive venue.)

The one very significant cost we can foresee is the cost of addressing the multilingualism challenge. This could be met in several ways:

• through corporate sponsorship?
• in a few venues, by local collaboration (e.g. through a translation school)
• through subvention by the sponsoring organizations, as part of their larger plan for handling multilingualism
• through some increase in conference fees (particularly if the conference is larger than at present)
• through innovation and advance planning: e.g. by providing advance translation services to reduce the need for simultaneous interpretation; by creating a compensation or incentive structure for organization members who assist in translation

6. Transition requirements/options

Because conferences are periodic events, the transition process is eased somewhat: the new structure and protocols can be developed over time, and implemented in the conference that follows their completion. The transition from our current arrangment (ALLC/ACH plus many other conferences) to the possible future endpoint (a single overarching conference plus regional/chapter conferences) may take several steps to complete, some of which will depend mostly on decisions about how the new organization will be structured. A possible set of steps might be:

1. If a transitional conference is deemed desirable (rather than just keeping what we have until the new system is ready) discuss combining the ACH/ALLC conference with a few of the most obvious other conferences, using the revised ACH/ALLC protocols: in other words, broaden the constituency for this conference without fundamentally altering its nature. The resulting conference could be explicitly a "joint-joint" conference: e.g. "ALLC/ACH/DRH" and its theme could be crafted to accommodate the resulting breadth of discipline and audience, perhaps through multiple tracks. It would also be explicitly a temporary/transitional arrangement: a way of beginning to achieve some of the goals of the larger reorganization (consolidation, breadth, etc.) while the larger process is taking place.
2. (Without waiting for the completion of 1) Undertake the longer process of framing the larger conference structure: begin discussions with other organizations and conferences to determine who wishes to consider participating, and assess the degree of accommodation that will be necessary (i.e. whether this will be a major diplomatic effort to reconcile fundamental differences of approach or just a matter of signing people up). The Ad Hoc group could come up with an initial framework which could then be modified on the basis of feedback from potential participants.
3. From the set of participants, create a conference steering committee which will be charged with adapting the ALLC/ACH conference protocol to the new conference organization, and also with developing a logistical framework to coordinate the timing and location of chapter conferences.
4. Concurrent with the above, solve the multilingualism issue...