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

[Michael Dewey]

Could I just add my support to the comment in Nicola's e-mail that DANTE 
would be a worthy recipient of some or all of the funds after the 
dissolution.

Michael

On 03/10/2021 13:01, Dr Nicola L C Talbot wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Michael
http://www.dewey.myzen.co.uk/home.html