Fwd: [UK-TUG] Structure of the SGM
Jonathan Fine
From: Jay Hammond <j...@jjnr.uk>
Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:07 AM
Subject: [UK-TUG] Structure of the SGM
To: UK-TUG Announce <uktug-a...@tug.org>
Hi members,
Structure of the SGM.
Thank you for considering dissolution here before the meeting. Thanks to those who submitted motions. I have not prepared a report for you, or planned the SGM.
So Joseph was not
able to advise you what format and structure of motions would be
acceptable to the SGM. That was an error on my part. I can offer
reasons why this happened. But it’s not edifying. I do apologise
to you. I’m not able to achieve all that I want for you. I have
had no offers of additional help on the committee. Despite my
requests for it. And that’s a part of the motivation for
dissolution. Jonathan Fine is more stark on this topic. He’s right
though. There won’t be an effective UKTUG in 2022. UKTUG will be
pretty much
impotent or have dissolved in an orderly fashion. I prefer the
latter
option. You hardly have a choice. At least give UKTUG a decent
burial. It’s not seemly to be precious about all the complex
motions.
Back to the SGM Structure:
Because I have not
yet
put the SGM design in place, proposers have had to guess what
structure will emerge for the SGM. And it’s not a surprise that
the
guesses differ. The SGM can’t
have multiple conflicting structures at once. So I need to devise
an
SGM that suits the motions and I also need to ensure the motions
fit
the one SGM structure we arrive at. It seems to me inevitable that
someone will have to make modifications to the motions. The
question
is when: Now, or during the meeting? The latter is impractical, as
we
are meeting in the e-SGM by email for only 7 days. and who?
I have been trying to devise a structure of SGM that would be simple and straightforward and allow the motions to be clearly voted on. Unfortunately, some of the motions are complex, time dependent and have other “difficult” features. Which would lead to a confusing complex SGM structure to support these features.
My preference would be to have one “UKTUG resolves to dissolve” motion and as many money motions as differ and are constitutionally acceptable, and stop there. But I’d prefer to have the agreement of the proposers.
Now I see the motions, there are 3 that propose dissolution, some with conditions some without. And some other motions urging action contrary to dissolution. Trying to allow you to vote clearly has given me some turbulent nights. I have to simplify the meeting.
No member can be expected to be alert and available to the meeting for 7 days continuously. Nor is it a reasonable demand that members attend a particular time slot because they wish to be informed about, or vote on a particular motion. The member may have other commitments at that time. It is reasonable to expect members to find time to address the motions during the extent of the meeting.
That’s why I suggest that all the motions are up for discussion and voting for the duration of the meeting *. The motions will have no time dependent features. Or if they do, they are explicit in each clause of the motion. There will be no complex interactions between motions.
The money motions might need an if clause to restrict their application to the circumstances in which UKTUG resolves to dissolve in 2021. ( 2019 had a similar structure of motion.)
* Like Knuth, I lied for simplicity of exposition. Voting ends before the end of the meeting, leaving the secretary time to tally the votes, and announce the results on the last morning of the meeting.
I’m not sure if we need Single transferable vote options for the money motions. Perhaps first past the post is enough.
Here’s a couple of suggestions about how to adjust the motions to suit this SGM design.
Plan A: all proposers agree to modify their their motions. Proposers and committee, or at least officers meet. Modifications to motions are agreed.
If plan A fails,
Plan B: As chair, I shall rule that some motions are inimical to the orderly running of the meeting. That it/they be not put to the meeting.
Plan B2 that I substitute a similar manageable motion for the inimical one(s). This might require the consent of the SGM, and that is a vote that has to take place in an early time slot. Which I have already said is not fair on members. Not an easy option. But not doing B2 would rule some motions out, with no possibility of discussion of their validly submitted intentions.
What can be done to make the motions manageable? Break them into their own meaningful elements, such as dissolve, allocate money, etc. Then sort and uniq. There will be a small number of action groups. E. g. Give surplus funds to: a successor organisation, to Dante and TUG, to...
Further simplification may be possible, necessary at this stage. Such as dissolve, with and without a "forthwith" being merged.
If these groups are full of mutually exclusive options, each member can have one (Yes) vote per group, and select their preferred option.
This solution requires major changes to some motions. But it allows you, the members, to clearly express your wishes, within the limits of the subject of the meeting, and the scope of the motions that were submitted.
Comments on the approach are welcome. Comments on the motions belong in a different thread. Please. If you think a motion will suffer unfairly under this approach, abstract away the content of the motion in your reply. Thanks
Jay
-- Email use j...@jjnr.uk
Jonathan Fine
I've just skim-read the email from Jay. It's long and has many details. He's done right to report to you what's happening to you. Thank you, Jay. Prior to his email, Jay had discussion with myself and others.