Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TUGBoat article: The Board's suspension of the President
328 views
Skip to first unread message
jfin...@gmail.com
Apr 2, 2016, 12:48:18 PM4/2/16
to
Hi
I've written a letter to TUGBoat, the journal of the TeX Users Group, about the Board's removal of the President. It will appear in the next issue (for which I'm most grateful).
You can, if you wish, read it now at this URL.
https://jonathanfine.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/jfine-tugboat-2016.pdf
There's a brief post on my blog that also points to the PDF.
https://jonathanfine.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-crisis-in-the-tex-users-group/
I ask that comments are posted here or the TUG members mailing list (which is accessible only to TUG members)
http://tug.org/mailman/private/members/
https://www.tug.org/members/
--
Jonathan
I've written a letter to TUGBoat, the journal of the TeX Users Group, about the Board's removal of the President. It will appear in the next issue (for which I'm most grateful).
You can, if you wish, read it now at this URL.
https://jonathanfine.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/jfine-tugboat-2016.pdf
There's a brief post on my blog that also points to the PDF.
https://jonathanfine.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-crisis-in-the-tex-users-group/
I ask that comments are posted here or the TUG members mailing list (which is accessible only to TUG members)
http://tug.org/mailman/private/members/
https://www.tug.org/members/
--
Jonathan
Dominik Wujastyk
Apr 2, 2016, 1:49:00 PM4/2/16
to
Thank you, Jonathan. I'm glad you have brought this important matter to the attention of TUGboat readers and the TeX community at large.
In my opinion, the TUG board made both moral and procedural mistakes in saying they suspended Bazargan. My reading of the TUG constitution shows several procedural errors, and as far as I can see, Bazargan is still TUG President. But, morally speaking, the Board seems to have take the side of one TUG member against another, and that seems very improper. They should never have got involved.
I've written to the TUG Board several times on this issue, urging reconsideration and negotiation. Bazargan is open to this. But they have only ever reiterated their position and shown no willingness to budge.
Meanwhile, I voted for Bazargan, as did a large majority of us TUG members, and our choice has been pushed aside by the Board.
The whole this is most regrettable, and I do see the TUG board as having caused the problem, in spite of their protestations. They made a poor judgement call, and now we're all stuck with a difficult situation.
In my view, the TUG Board should withdraw their assertion of having suspended Bazargan's presidency. He would then resign (because he can't work with the present board, and because his enthusiasm for Presiding over TUG has understandingly been drained away). And then TUG would be in a position to move forward legitimately and in an orderly and non-partisan way, with face saved on all sides.
Best,
Dominik Wujastyk
In my opinion, the TUG board made both moral and procedural mistakes in saying they suspended Bazargan. My reading of the TUG constitution shows several procedural errors, and as far as I can see, Bazargan is still TUG President. But, morally speaking, the Board seems to have take the side of one TUG member against another, and that seems very improper. They should never have got involved.
I've written to the TUG Board several times on this issue, urging reconsideration and negotiation. Bazargan is open to this. But they have only ever reiterated their position and shown no willingness to budge.
Meanwhile, I voted for Bazargan, as did a large majority of us TUG members, and our choice has been pushed aside by the Board.
The whole this is most regrettable, and I do see the TUG board as having caused the problem, in spite of their protestations. They made a poor judgement call, and now we're all stuck with a difficult situation.
In my view, the TUG Board should withdraw their assertion of having suspended Bazargan's presidency. He would then resign (because he can't work with the present board, and because his enthusiasm for Presiding over TUG has understandingly been drained away). And then TUG would be in a position to move forward legitimately and in an orderly and non-partisan way, with face saved on all sides.
Best,
Dominik Wujastyk
toh...@gmail.com
Apr 2, 2016, 2:39:52 PM4/2/16
to
Dear Dominik,
I'll repeat myself, but you miss some points, all of which have been mentioned before. The most important being the fact that you (and nobody else) know how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit.
Best,
Tom
I'll repeat myself, but you miss some points, all of which have been mentioned before. The most important being the fact that you (and nobody else) know how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit.
Best,
Tom
jfin...@gmail.com
Apr 3, 2016, 4:04:08 AM4/3/16
to
Tom wrote, replying to Dominik:
I don't find this sufficient grounds to overturn the result of the election. The TUG committee responsible for the conduct of the election saw no need to overturn or re-run the election. (All its members later voted for Kaveh's suspension.)
TUG has a members-only mailing list (details in the original post). I suggest that in future it be used as a forum for discussing the merits of candidates for office. This would have avoided Tom's cause for doubt, and made for a fairer and better election process.
The rest of this post gives background information.
Kaveh disclosed in his election statement that for 25 years his company Focal Image (now River Valley Technologies) has been providing TeX typesetting to publishers. See https://tug.org/election/2015/candidates.html#bazargan.
Although this could give rise to a conflict of interest, it was also explicitly part of the attraction of Kaveh as a candidate. Kaveh also wrote: I feel I am well connected in the publishing industry and want to use that influence to promote TUG.
Kaveh did all that was required of him by the Bylaws, and I find his election statement truthful, fair and accurate. Like most election statements, it focussed on his strengths. Further, the Elections Committee (Barbara Beeton, Kaja Christiansen and Susan DeMerritt) declared him elected (even though they later voted for his suspension).
Further, CVR (the other party in the lawsuit) had ample opportunity to bring the lawsuit to the attention of the Elections Committee, the TUG Board, or this newsgroup. It seems that *after* the election result was announced, CVR complained to the Board about the law-suit, which resulted in Kaveh's suspension.
I don't see in this a 'what if' that is sufficient to overturn the election result.
--
Jonathan
> I'll repeat myself, but you miss some points, all of which have been mentioned before. The most important being the fact that you (and nobody else) know how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit.
Tom is saying: If the electorate knew about the lawsuit, the result might have been different (but no-one can't know).
I don't find this sufficient grounds to overturn the result of the election. The TUG committee responsible for the conduct of the election saw no need to overturn or re-run the election. (All its members later voted for Kaveh's suspension.)
TUG has a members-only mailing list (details in the original post). I suggest that in future it be used as a forum for discussing the merits of candidates for office. This would have avoided Tom's cause for doubt, and made for a fairer and better election process.
The rest of this post gives background information.
Kaveh disclosed in his election statement that for 25 years his company Focal Image (now River Valley Technologies) has been providing TeX typesetting to publishers. See https://tug.org/election/2015/candidates.html#bazargan.
Although this could give rise to a conflict of interest, it was also explicitly part of the attraction of Kaveh as a candidate. Kaveh also wrote: I feel I am well connected in the publishing industry and want to use that influence to promote TUG.
Kaveh did all that was required of him by the Bylaws, and I find his election statement truthful, fair and accurate. Like most election statements, it focussed on his strengths. Further, the Elections Committee (Barbara Beeton, Kaja Christiansen and Susan DeMerritt) declared him elected (even though they later voted for his suspension).
Further, CVR (the other party in the lawsuit) had ample opportunity to bring the lawsuit to the attention of the Elections Committee, the TUG Board, or this newsgroup. It seems that *after* the election result was announced, CVR complained to the Board about the law-suit, which resulted in Kaveh's suspension.
I don't see in this a 'what if' that is sufficient to overturn the election result.
--
Jonathan
Ulrike Fischer
Apr 3, 2016, 9:34:25 AM4/3/16
to
Am Sun, 3 Apr 2016 01:04:01 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jfin...@gmail.com:
> Tom is saying: If the electorate knew about the lawsuit, the
> result might have been different (but no-one can't know).
> Tom is saying: If the electorate knew about the lawsuit, the
> result might have been different (but no-one can't know).
> I don't see in this a 'what if' that is sufficient to overturn the
> election result.
The election wasn't overturned because of some "what if" reasoning
> election result.
but because the board was concerned when Kaveh used *after the
election* the fact that he was elected president in a document to a
court to put more weight on his claims in the lawsuit. To quote from
the TUG Board message from the 17. february
>> It is our understanding that Kaveh, without notifying the Board, submitted
>> in support of a suit he filed against another TUG member, a document that
>> cites his election as TUG president. This document also includes the
>> election statements of all other candidates for the Board, who were
>> unaware of this use of their information.
>> We felt strongly that the use of TUG in this context was improper, and
>> requested that Kaveh withdraw the documents from the suit. ...
and from 15. october last year:
>> In addition, the directors were informed that the fact of Kaveh's
>> election as TUG President was included in documents submitted to the
>> court. We believe that TUG should not take sides, or even appear to
>> take sides, in a lawsuit to which it is not a party.
>I don't find this sufficient grounds to overturn the result of the election.
see sufficient grounds for a suspension. I wonder why you find it so
difficult to respect that other people sometimes make decisions you
wouldn't have done yourself.
--
Ulrike Fischer
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/
jfin...@gmail.com
Apr 3, 2016, 12:15:57 PM4/3/16
to
Hi Ulrike
Tom wrote that the most important missed fact was that no-one knows "how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit." I responded just to that. You raise a different argument.
You write that the election was overturned:
On 6 October 2015 board (at) tug.org emailed Kaveh:
===
As TUG president, you have a duty to represent all TUG members to the best of
your ability (just as we do as TUG directors). It is not possible to fulfill this responsibility when you are involved in a lawsuit against another TUG member.
===
and continued by saying that if Kaveh did not resign he would be suspended. (I quote this in my TUGBoat article.) Walk or be pushed were his only options. There was no option of withdrawing the documents and remaining President. I do wish such an offer had been made, and accepted.
In my TUGBoat article I specifically discuss the duties of TUG Board members, and come to a conclusion very different from that of the Board (see sections 4-6 of https://jonathanfine.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/jfine-tugboat-2016.pdf).
--
Jonathan
Tom wrote that the most important missed fact was that no-one knows "how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit." I responded just to that. You raise a different argument.
You write that the election was overturned:
> because the board was concerned when Kaveh used *after the
> election* the fact that he was elected president in a document to a
> court to put more weight on his claims in the lawsuit.
and further (quoting the board, 17 February 2016) that the Board:
> election* the fact that he was elected president in a document to a
> court to put more weight on his claims in the lawsuit.
> felt strongly that the use of TUG in this context was improper, and
> requested that Kaveh withdraw the documents from the suit. ..
The Board statement implies that if Kaveh had withdrawn the documents, he would still be TUG President. It seems, to TUG's detriment, that no such offer was made.
> requested that Kaveh withdraw the documents from the suit. ..
On 6 October 2015 board (at) tug.org emailed Kaveh:
===
As TUG president, you have a duty to represent all TUG members to the best of
your ability (just as we do as TUG directors). It is not possible to fulfill this responsibility when you are involved in a lawsuit against another TUG member.
===
and continued by saying that if Kaveh did not resign he would be suspended. (I quote this in my TUGBoat article.) Walk or be pushed were his only options. There was no option of withdrawing the documents and remaining President. I do wish such an offer had been made, and accepted.
In my TUGBoat article I specifically discuss the duties of TUG Board members, and come to a conclusion very different from that of the Board (see sections 4-6 of https://jonathanfine.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/jfine-tugboat-2016.pdf).
--
Jonathan
news16
Apr 3, 2016, 8:51:54 PM4/3/16
to
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 09:15:54 -0700, jfine2358 wrote:
> The Board statement implies that if Kaveh had withdrawn the documents,
> he would still be TUG President. It seems, to TUG's detriment, that no
> such offer was made.
And this is possible?
> The Board statement implies that if Kaveh had withdrawn the documents,
> he would still be TUG President. It seems, to TUG's detriment, that no
> such offer was made.
Not that it is relevant as by posting that, he clearly showed that he
would misuse his position as TUG President for personal gain.
Simon Spiegel
Apr 4, 2016, 3:58:05 AM4/4/16
to
by the board. And from my legal understanding – which is limited – this
could not really be a reason to suspend the president.
Simon
Dominik Wujastyk
Apr 4, 2016, 8:08:24 PM4/4/16
to
I think it is worth mentioning *why* Kaveh cut-n-pasted material from the TUG website and included it in the papers he submitted to the court in India. It was done in order to provide evidence that he was President of TUG, and that as such he knew something about TeX.
The other party in the dispute had disputed Kaveh's knowledge of TeX, in their opposing court submissions.
The other party in the dispute had disputed Kaveh's knowledge of TeX, in their opposing court submissions.
Dominik Wujastyk
Apr 4, 2016, 8:41:19 PM4/4/16
to
On Saturday, 2 April 2016 12:39:52 UTC-6, toh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Dominik,
> I'll repeat myself, but you miss some points, all of which have been mentioned before. The most important being the fact that you (and nobody else) know how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit.
Dear Tom,
> Dear Dominik,
> I'll repeat myself, but you miss some points, all of which have been mentioned before. The most important being the fact that you (and nobody else) know how many people wouldn't have voted for Kaveh if they knew about the lawsuit.
I don't have any memory of you making the above point to me before. I certainly do not claim privileged knowledge of a counterfactual; nor should you.
It's important to note that the existence of a lawsuit is *not* grounds for suspension of at TUG president. The TUG board needs to stick to the TUG Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that could - even by a stretch - be made to mean this.
Best,
Dominik
news16
Apr 5, 2016, 12:43:53 AM4/5/16
to
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:41:14 -0700, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
> It's important to note that the existence of a lawsuit is *not* grounds
> for suspension of at TUG president. The TUG board needs to stick to the
> TUG Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that could - even
> by a stretch - be made to mean this.
So miss use of position is okay by you?
> It's important to note that the existence of a lawsuit is *not* grounds
> for suspension of at TUG president. The TUG board needs to stick to the
> TUG Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that could - even
> by a stretch - be made to mean this.
news16
Apr 5, 2016, 12:50:37 AM4/5/16
to
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:08:16 -0700, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
> I think it is worth mentioning *why* Kaveh cut-n-pasted material from
> the TUG website and included it in the papers he submitted to the court
> in India. It was done in order to provide evidence that he was
> President of TUG, and that as such he knew something about TeX.
It is?
> I think it is worth mentioning *why* Kaveh cut-n-pasted material from
> the TUG website and included it in the papers he submitted to the court
> in India. It was done in order to provide evidence that he was
> President of TUG, and that as such he knew something about TeX.
Is knowledge of Tex a constitutional requirement of the position?
>
> The other party in the dispute had disputed Kaveh's knowledge of TeX, in
> their opposing court submissions.
something about Tex.
Shrug, that court case is beginning to look like the typical circus that
all ex-partner fall outs degenerate to.
disc...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2016, 8:11:01 PM4/11/16
to
Some interesting comments and counter comments, however it seems that for some the intent is to try to pick apart the board's rationale, piecemeal, and thereby reduce it to nothing.
From having followed this from its first announcement (and not having any "inside track" knowledge), it seems that the issue is one of compounded error, wherein each element itself may not be grounds for action but taken in sequence and in their entirety, demands action.
From what I have seen, I would say that if I were on the board (and I have been on many boards) I could have made the same decision.
I doubt that, as it has been none to subtly suggested, this is some machiavellian effort on the part of the opposing candidate during the election to get the top seat at the Presidents's table. But I could be wrong. I have never met either person and make no character assessment.
From having followed this from its first announcement (and not having any "inside track" knowledge), it seems that the issue is one of compounded error, wherein each element itself may not be grounds for action but taken in sequence and in their entirety, demands action.
From what I have seen, I would say that if I were on the board (and I have been on many boards) I could have made the same decision.
I doubt that, as it has been none to subtly suggested, this is some machiavellian effort on the part of the opposing candidate during the election to get the top seat at the Presidents's table. But I could be wrong. I have never met either person and make no character assessment.
toh...@gmail.com
Apr 13, 2016, 1:41:08 PM4/13/16
to
sorry, I really made a mistake and posted the wrong reason (well, it's a reason I consider relevant, but seems not to be covered by the Bylaws). What is covered by the Bylaws is acting in TUG's best interests (section IV.5). And prove me wrong, but getting involved in 3rd party lawsuits is not something you want. (Well, maybe someone wants it, but the Board has decided that TUG does not.)
Best
Tom
0 new messages