[UK-TUG] Supporting Statement for Motions 3, 4 and 5

[Joseph Wright]

Supporting state for Motions 3, 4 and 5 from Jay Hammond

----

These motions form a set, and I recommend you vote for all of them together.


UKTUG should be wound up.

Its internal difficulties are soluble, but this would require radical 
changes to the committee composition. That seems unlikely, not 
impossible. Members not currently on the committee would need to get 
involved. If you can’t offer to come on the committee, vote to resolve 
the situation in 3 months.

Externally: At the moment, UKTUG has no practical way to fulfil its 
purpose of supporting TeX in the UK, because the world has changed and a 
bricks-and mortar club is no longer how things work for software support.

Motions 3, 4, and 5 allow UKTUG time to plan a way forward. Then to act, 
one way or another,  3 months after the AGM. If  a workable way forward 
has been developed,  a dissolution might not be necessary. If it has 
not, then an Special General Meeting (SGM) will be be convened to put 
UKTUG down painlessly.

I phrase it like that, because with time to prepare a dissolution motion 
(to be put at an SGM in 3 months’ time), the members could decide to 
wind UKTUG up with no detriment to themselves. As I see it, UKTUG 
delivers only two benefits to members. They could be kept by members who 
actually want them (not many of us, actually) after dissolution without 
the overhead of a formal structure.

Benefit 1) annual TeX Live CDs (for as long as they are being pressed, 
maybe 5 more years?)

Benefit 2) annual speaker meeting and opportunity for communication with 
other members.

The details of exactly how to achieve this are not complex but don’t 
need elaborating here. It is a choice members would have if they 
contributed to the creation of the SGM motions. In this respect, Motions 
3, 4 and 5 differ from AGM motions 6 & 7, which rule out this choice. 
Motion 6 on its own would bind the committee to dissolve UKTUG without 
further reference to the members’ wishes.

Three months is sufficient time, if the committee is not hamstrung by 
procedural difficulties, to discuss what to do with the money, physical 
assets, data, so the SGM dissolution motion would be explicit about 
these issues. Equally, if a positive plan can be developed, then 
dissolution is not necessary.

I believe the members should lead on this, if at all possible. After 
all, UKTUG is not a society for the committee, it’s for the members. The 
members certainly should say what they want. Three months is time to 
collect views, prepare motions. It is not intended to delay planning a 
future for UKTUG or planning dissolution both of which must go on in 
parallel, with urgency.


Motion 2 is not specific and is a “distractor”, with the aim of delaying 
decision.


Vote for motions 3, 4 and 5 .

Jay Hammond




On 13/11/2019 07:27, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> In order to encourage turnout in our voting and after consulting the 
> committee, I would like to offer you the chance to make an additional 
> statement in support of your AGM motions.
>
> Time is regrettably tight, so I will have to ask for any such 
> statements today. I am sorry for the short notice; we have not 
> previously had such important motions, and did not have pre-agreed 
> approaches to making additional statements.
>
> As all motions are now published, new supporting statements can 
> reference other motions. The statements may also refer to the parallel 
> election for Chair, if you wish. (I note that for Jay and Jonathan, 
> the two issues are in any case inter-linked.)
>
> I hope that this is regarded as equitable: my primary concern is to 
> ensure a high turnout from an informed electorate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joseph

-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk