\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[english,UKenglish]{babel}
\usepackage[babel]{csquotes}
\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage[osf]{mathpazo}
\usepackage[parfill]{parskip}

\title{Annual General Meeting \\ Draft minutes}
\author{UK-TUG}
\date{14:00, 22th October 2001 \\ Trinity College, Oxford}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

Members present:
  Simon Dales (SD),
  Jonathan Fine (JF),
  Alun Moon (AM),
  Phil Molyneux (PM),
  Joseph Wright (JW).
  
Apologies received:
  Robin Fairbairns (RF),
  Jay Hammond (JH),
  Carol Hewlett (CH),
  Dick Nickalls (DK),
  John Peters (JP),
  David Saunders (DS),
  S.~Rayment (SR),
  Nicola Talbot (NT).
  
\section{Minutes of the last meeting}

The minutes of the last AGM were agreed as a true record by all 
members present.

\section{Quorum}

JW noted that he had received five proxy votes, and that with a
current membership of 155 this did not reach the level required
by the constitution for a quorum. It was agreed that the new
committee would hold a Special Electronic General Meeting (SEGM)
to consider the motions from the AGM.

\subsection{\TeX{} Gyre funding report}

The previously-circulated report was summarised orally by JW,
who explained that this was prepared using information supplied
by Hans Hagen (HH). JW also showed a demonstration file, showing
Latin Modern glyphs, which had been supplied by HH.

JF explained that UK-TUG have sent \pounds 1700 to GUST for this
project, which was originally intended as half of a total
allocation of \pounds 3400. He suggested that the new committee
should review the allocation of further funds to the project. JF
suggested that the new committee should ask for the relevant
accounts from GUST. There was agreement that this tasks should
be noted by the incoming committee.

\section{Secretary's Report}

JW summarised his written report verbally, and noted that he was
happy to continue in the role for the next year. JF felt that
both the payment holiday for members and the subsequent
reintroduction of the fee had been successful.

\subsection{Accounts}

JW verbally summarised the written report from JP. There was
some discussion of the need to arrange inspection of the
accounts. It was agreed to defer this to the relevant point on
the agenda.

JF asked in light of Motion 2 whether specific funding for
projects could be asked for as donations. JW was concerned that
the committee would have to be very careful to earmark such
donations. Further discussion on specific projects was deferred
to the AOB section.

\section{Motions}

As noted earlier, the number of members in attendance at the AGM was
not sufficient for voting to take place. Based on the model from 
the 2010 AGM, JW proposed that the incoming committee should arrange
an SEGM to vote on the motions, with a non-binding vote by those
present. 

\subsection{Motion 1}

\begin{quote}
  That this meeting approves the accounts for 2010--11.
\end{quote}
This was supported by all members present.

\subsection{Motion 2}

\begin{quote}
  That the membership fee for 2012 be \pounds 10 for all individual
  members (apart from life members), and that there be no additional 
  entrance fee.
\end{quote}
This was supported by all members present.

\subsection{Motion 3}

\begin{quote}
  That Section 24.3 of the Constitution be deleted, and replaced it
  with by:
  \begin{quote}
     24.3 The accounts for each financial year shall be presented to the
          Annual General Meeting immediately following the end of that
          financial year.
  \end{quote}        
\end{quote}
JH had supplied JW with an alternative version of Motion 3,
along with notes. These were circulated to those present. Given
the need for an SEGM, it was decided that no vote would take
place on this motion and that full discussion should take place
as part of the SEGM.

\section{Committee}

JW had received nominations to elect
\begin{itemize}
  \item Simon Dales
  \item Jonathan Fine
  \item John Peters
  \item Joseph Wright
\end{itemize}
to the Committee for 2011--12. He also noted that AM continues
as a member of the Committee in his role as Chairman.

\section{Any other business}

\subsection{CTAN}

RF had informed JW that the Cambridge CTAN server will require
replacement within the next six months, and that replacement
machine will be between about \pounds 1000 and \pounds 1500.

SD wondered whether a hosted solution would be better than new
hardware. JW said that he believed that the issue was bandwidth
costs, as this is currently free. He indicated that informal
information from Rainer Sch\"opf (DANTE) was that the commercial
bandwidth bill for the German CTAN server around \pounds 2000
per month (this information was given from memory).
JF stated that TUG have limited bandwidth in the US.
JW said that from memory around 40\% of the Cambridge bandwidth
is required for Mac\TeX{} downloads. SD wondered about net
installers: JW replied that this may simply spread the same
overall load over more files making the load less obvious.

JF raised the question of the CTAN infrastructure model. There
was agreement that this is important but a separate issue to the
immediate requirement for a new system. A vote to ask the
incoming committee to consider financing a new system was
unopposed.

Further discussion of the CTAN in the longer term was not needed
as part of the AGM, but it was noted that the incoming committee
should look further at this.

\subsection{Next AGM/meeting}

JF stated that he will be on the organising committee for a UK
Python meeting to take place in or around September 2012 in the
Coventry area. He suggested that UK-TUG might look to find
common ground with this meeting as a thread. This would allow a
much longer notice period for the AGM/speaker meeting than is
often the case. He suggested HTML5 and mobile devices as an
example of an area of common interest between UK-TUG members and
the Python community.

SD wondered whether the timing would suit UK-TUG. There was general
agreement that the incoming committee could explore the possibility.
JW pointed out that a specific committee motion would be needed for
the next AGM date.

It was agreed that the incoming committee should examine this
idea.

\section{Closing}

JF proposed a vote of thanks for DS and Jonathan Webley, both of
whom leave the committee. A round of applause was given to both
for their work on the committee.

No other business arose, and the formal meeting ended at 15:00.

\end{document}