[UK-TUG] Draft motions for dissolution special general meeting (SGM)

[Dr Nicola L C Talbot]

Hi Jonathan

On 03/10/2021 10:32, Jonathan Fine wrote:

> The first I knew of TUG being approached as recipient of UK-TUG funds was the message Jay Hammond sent to this list 3 days ago.


Just a little reminder, the 2019 UK-TUG motions (see 
https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/2019q4/000232.html) included:

 > 7. That if Motion 6 is passed, any remaining funds after liabilities
 >     have been discharged should be distributed to TUG and DANTE to
 >    further support TeX activities.

There's also this bit in Motion 5:

 >    The motion to dissolve must include details of how UK-TUG material 
will
 >    be archived and where residual funds will be distributed.

It makes sense to approach possible recipients before dissolution. It 
can't be done afterwards as the motion to dissolve must definitively 
state where the funds will go.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind members of the 
explanatory notes accompanying Motion 7 
(https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/2019q4/000235.html):

 > UKTUG holds a not inconsiderable sum of money and has held it for many
 > years but appears structurally incapable of using it for the benefit
 > of the TeX community: engine developments, font developments, travel
 > support etc, have all gone unfunded.

One of the questions raised at the 2019 AGM was how many projects have 
applied for funding in recent years. Joseph replied that only one 
application had been made in the period he has acted as Secretary.

The reason for this lack of applications for funding is unclear. It may 
simply be that the lack of applications is due to developers not being 
aware that they can apply for funding, or it could be that developers 
are put off from applying, perhaps because they are part of an 
international project (and so think they will be outside the UK-TUG 
remit) or perhaps for some other reason (for example, there may be a 
perception --- rightly or wrongly --- that there is a committee member 
with such stringent criteria about how funding should be allocated that 
it's not worth the bother). These are all suppositions on my part. 
Without people stating their reasons, all we can do is guess.

Many packages simply have a sole developer (usually just working in 
their spare time), but TeX is international and larger projects have 
multinational teams. TUG has an active TeX development fund 
(https://www.tug.org/tc/devfund/grants.html).

I therefore believe that UK-TUG's funds should go to TUG in the event 
that UK-TUG dissolves. (DANTE, who support CTAN, are also a good choice. 
Anyone who uses TeX relies on a TeX distribution.) At least that way the 
money can be spent on projects that benefit the entire TeX community 
instead of being sat on indefinitely.

Regards
Nicola Talbot