[UK-TUG] UKTUG Chair’s report: for 2019/2020

[Jay Hammond]

UKTUG Chair’s report: for 2019/2020


What shape does this report have?


It describes where UKTUG is now, and looks to next year.


To describe the present situation, I look at how did we get here, what 
happened, and what didn’t happen. As for 2021, there’s an appendix that 
considers how to allocate UKTUG funds on dissolution or before.


On a personal note, I’ve had limited resources to devote to UKTUG. I now 
have two cancers to manage. This may explain my lapses. Other 2019/2020 
committee members have also had health issues. I have wished for a more 
active committee, but the committee is contributing what it can to 
UKTUG, not necessarily as much as UKTUG needs to function well. Last 
year (2018/19) was similar.


Although this report is for November 2019 to November 2020, at least one 
event before the previous AGM has had a big impact on the work of the 
committee. Our long term treasurer, John Peters, whom I thank, became 
ill and was unable to fulfil his duties. He was not able to report at 
the 2018/2019 AGM. He was not able to return the financial data (bank 
statements etc.) to the committee.


There were concerns that UKTUG would be operating unconstitutionally 
without a treasurer. There was an AGM motion to address this.


I’ve done my best to support the new treasurer, Jonathan Webley. The 
secretary, treasurer & chair are now co-signatories to the accounts. I 
have obtained statements for the last 3 years, and the treasurer now has 
them. Covid-19 made it difficult for the treasurer to obtain them 
directly from the bank.


I hope the abbreviated financial statement is satisfactory.


At the 2018/19 AGM, dissolution of UKTUG was considered. Even before the 
AGM, it was clear that opinions were divided on whether to dissolve. And 
should there be dissolution, opinions were very diverse on what to do 
with the cash assets. I resolved to find resolutions to these issues.


Whether to dissolve? If UKTUG is to continue, it needs to have 
purpose(s), and to achieve those purposes. The basic purpose is to 
promote TeX and friends, in the UK context. There’s little in TeX that’s 
UK specific. Hyphenation and spelling of British English come to mind. 
The English language FAQ is independent of UKTUG. There is no longer a 
UK CTAN node. (So funds that had previously been proposed for spending 
on that were not used). UKTUG used to successfully run LaTeX training 
courses. But not recently.


With that background, I sought to gather together those members who 
wanted to keep UKTUG going, get them to formulate an actionable plan 
with a view to presenting it to an SGM in spring 2020. The AGM called 
for an SGM to be held within 3 months of the AGM, to ensure UKTUG was 
operating constitutionally, and to consider dissolving UKTUG. I myself 
intended to prepare a dissolution plan and present that at the SGM. It 
included details of how present UKTUG members could get the social 
benefits of UKTUG and get the TeXLive distribution without the 
organisational overhead of UKTUG.


I was only able to find 3 members willing to work on reviving UKTUG. 
They did not form a team, and did not produce a plan. I believed, given 
the strength of feeling at the AGM, that there were more members willing 
to revive UKTUG. I put considerable effort into finding them and allowed 
the process too much time. I realised too late, that I had missed the 
deadline for calling the SGM. So there was no positive forward plan, and 
no SGM to put it to. I did announce to members how we were operating 
constitutionally, so that aspect of the SGM was fulfilled positively.


The other aspect of the AGM that I had resolved to address was what to 
do with UKTUG assets in fulfilment of its aims. The committee can spend 
UKTUG funds on activities that promote TeX and kindred software and 
standards. The spending is not restricted to paying organisations, as is 
the case after winding up. As an approximation, payments other than 
expenses cannot go to committee members.


LearnLaTeX: As you know, following input from members, the committee was 
pleased to offer funding for web-site design, a skill UKTUG does not 
possess, to enable a project otherwise donated by UKTUG members to 
provide online training for LaTeX newcomers. The project is LearnLaTeX, 
and the website design is funded up to £6000 by UKTUG. LearnLaTeX is is 
also funded by TUG. The Website designer has been commissioned, is 
working, and a recent report says that the required funding will be less 
than £6000, perhaps closer £4000. He (or his company) will be paid 
against a verified invoice.


I have been careful to describe the circumstances, to ensure you are 
clear that no money was paid to a committee member for this project, nor 
will it be. Joseph Wright proposed the project, and despite not 
benefiting from the project, withdrew from discussion of it in 
committee. I personally feel that UKTUG should have had the benefit of 
his advice, but his behaviour was quite proper in the sense that there 
was no time at which a potential conflict of interest between his role 
as project instigator and UKTUG secretary could have had any influence 
on the funding decision. I’m sorry it has been necessary to spell this 
out in detail, but a member has expressed a concern.


There should be about £9000 of UKTUG funds after UKTUG has settled its 
debts. Looking forward those funds should be found a good use. (Appendix 1)


“Looking forward” takes us ahead of the timeline. To return, At the 
beginning of the LearnLaTeX project, I was still minded to wind up UKTUG 
in 2020. So negotiations started, chiefly with DANTE, to see if a Local 
User Group (LUG) would accept UKTUG funds with which pay the Website 
Designer when the bills were submitted. That would have permitted UKTUG 
to dissolve as soon as it was ready. The negotiations were not 
successful. Despite our best efforts, UKTUG will have to continue at 
least until the website designer has been paid. Thanks to the committee 
for their efforts.


More recently, I have spent a lot of time with the constitution, to see 
how the necessary AGM could be held under the current pandemic 
restrictions. There has to be a physical AGM. The quorum has to be met. 
The minimum is 10 members. Except, if the initial attempt at an AGM does 
not have a quorum, allowance is made to reschedule an AGM and accept the 
member(s) that attend then as the quorum.


This does not address issues of good governance. How are members to have 
their say? I was debating whether to hold an SGM before the AGM or after 
it. SGMs can be held online, but must last for at least 7 days because 
they were thought of as email exchanges. As you can see, the resolution 
is for there to be informal debate before the AGM, and an SGM after.


There is some fluidity in the situation. I do not know the outcome of 
the AGM yet. Whatever it is, a following SGM will have the power to 
reverse decisions made by the AGM (not retroactively though), and make 
decisions the AGM might have made but did not.


I hope that the AGM will put together a committee for 2020/21. If it 
does that, then an SGM can be called by the committee. The SGM can then 
do all the other AGM business. There are alternative ways to call an SGM 
if necessary. If the AGM also takes decisions that a following SGM is 
content with, I see no problem with that. The informal discussion here 
is to steer the AGM in that direction.


We are now up to date

I trust the secretary's report will mention the few notable committee 
motions we passed.

The minutes of the previous AGM have the AGM motions.


I intend that UKTUG will wind up in 2021. The incoming committee is not 
yet nominated. If it is substantially as last year (there will be some 
changes), that is the best I can practically hope for. In that state, it 
will still not have the energy to sustain UKTUG.


Jay Hammond, 26/11/2020


Appendix 1

On winding up, UKTUG can only transfer funds to organisations, and 
preferably those with similar aims to UKTUG. Before winding up, UKTUG 
can be more flexible about achieving its aims. If this scheme allocates 
funds before winding up, read “project” for “organisation” For example, 
I understand LaTeX3 (which UKTUG has supported in various ways in the 
past) is a project but not an organisation.



Because members do not agree which single organisation should get UKTUG 
funds, several organisations will be the recipients. So UKTUG needs to 
determine which organisations come into question, and how much they 
should get. This is not a job for the committee. I think members should 
suggest organisations such as LUGs and others that they would like to 
see UKTUG funds go to. The committee can then compile the list, and send 
out a questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask each member to allocate 
10 points amongst none or more of the organisations listed. The total 
number of points allocated by members represents the available funds for 
distribution, and the points allocated to an organisation represents the 
proportion of the funds the organisation will get. To keep 
administration simple, and so as not to waste funds on bank charges, 
currency fees etc., there will have to be a minimum allocation. I 
suggest £50. Organisations that do not meet the threshold will be 
removed from the list. The total points allocated will be recalculated, 
and the distribution can go ahead.


Jay Hammond, 26/11/2020

-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20201126/e0933178/attachment.html>