thanks for the heads-up. can such an important document be voted
through webvote? after you moved the faculty meeting to tuesday 2:30pm, it
has been in conflict with a 10-year meeting series (other than term
breaks) at the same time, and today our mitacs globalink intern will give
the final talk, looking for my feedback too<\/p>\n\n\n\n
also can you give a diff with the july 5 version, in addition to that with
the 2010 one? just glanced through your points listed below, but do not
understand why and how the expected standard for cpi is increased and
clarified. besides teaching and research, the other\/service contribution
has to be solid from the chair’s view?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
i guess the faculty evaluation policy applies to both teaching and
research faculty, but i do not understand why a research faculty can
choose to de-emphasize research, instead of moving to more teaching
gradually or so (e.g, 40%:40%->x:y where x+y=80%) already accommodated in
the framework\/collective agreement. why bother service (20%)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
thanks for giving the list of fep committee members too. i remember that
fep was used to be fac (faculty advisory committee)’s responsible, with
members elected by regular faculty members, but this fep committee seems
mostly by chairs\/director\/dean, which is weakened, not improved, in terms
of collegiate governance advocated by the new ca?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
anyway, hope you can allow this important document be thoroughly discussed
(e.g., using connex or aco) and voted electronically, especially for this
time of the year, as many faculty members won’t be available on campus for
various reasons. we already have the technology, why not use it well, to
be open, fair and uplifting? thanks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
thanks for the heads-up. can such an important document be voted through webvote? after you moved the faculty meeting to tuesday 2:30pm, it has been in conflict with a 10-year meeting series (other than term breaks) at the same time, and today our … Continue reading