[UK-TUG] Jay Hammond's "dissolve forthwith" motion

[Jay Hammond]

Jonathan Fine invites me to motivate my Dissolution motion here. I don't 
know that you,  the members will be interested. But in case you are, 
here is the bigger picture.

I'm a volunteer. I give what I can. UKTUG is demanding much more than 
that.   As a result, the outcomes are not perfect**. UKTug was failing 
two years ago. It has got worse. It has failed in my opinion. 
Dissolution can be orderly. Other realistic outcomes are likely to 
result in UKTUG funds being locked in to an impotent organisation that 
cannot revive itself enough even to dispose of the funds responsibly.

*Content:*

Why did I put "UKTUG resolves to dissolve forthwith" to the committee 
for submission to the SGM?

Why  a motion to dissolve?

Why the timing in the motion

Why the timing of putting the motion to committee.

     (with a comment on formal process and practical politics)

--------------------------------

*why put a motion to committee for submission to the SGM?*

The SGM is on the topic of dissolution, the exact motion must be 
notified to the members in advance. The SGM does not have a motion yet.

*why a motion to dissolve?*

I said that I'd try to shut down UKTUG in an orderly fashion when I 
stood as chair nearly two years ago. from the introduction above you'll 
see I have not changed my mind.

-- why dissolve UKTUG --

Dissolution is necessary because UKTUG is unrescuable*, dysfunctional, 
and does not serve its members efficiently (if at all) nor is it able to 
benefit the TeX community as much as it is committed to do. The shutdown 
will be  orderly because provision is being made for members to get the 
benefits they had from UKTUG in the last few years another (easier) way. 
Some UKTUG funds have gone to TeX supporting projects in the past two 
years. Not enough. Those provisions were not in place last time it was 
suggested to shut down UKTUG.

The dissolution committee is empowered to spend funds on the Aims of 
UKTUG, as well as get residual funds to suitable organisations. It can 
rescue UKTUG Intellectual Property.  For example,  We don't have to 
erase Baskerville or the UKTUG web-site as a whole. Modification will be 
necessary. I think of that as memorialising it.

*Why the timing in the motion*

Most of the the committee has now thought about whether dissolution 
should be triggered when the vote on the motion is announced.

We've recently decided yes. I don't want to spend long on hypotheticals. 
But why "forthwith" ?

Putting a time and or  date to the dissolution adds extra complications 
to the process. For instance the period between the passing of the vote 
to dissolve and the dissolution process starting is a sort of limbo. The 
creaky  constitution will still be in place, and I dread to think what 
interesting loopholes could be found to frustrate your vote.

*Why the timing of putting the motion to committee.*

Committee rules apply.

Under UKTUG committee rules Committee discussions are private: Jonathan 
Fine should not be publishing them to you. He should not have access to 
minutes of meetings he was not at. But he does and reveals them to you. 
You won't be surprised to hear that most of the current committee is 
saying little in its actual meetings until its mind is made up. Real 
discussion  is taking place elsewhere. Now that most of the committee is 
clear about the best approach, it's time to do the formal stuff.

The whole committee has enough days (under rules that JF pointed out to 
me, thanks JF) to formally discuss and agree to put a dissolution motion 
to the SGM, with a short reason.

-------------------------


* I tried too hard at getting members to put together a rescue package, 
and missed deadlines as a result. Sorry.

** see *, and the same thing nearly happened with reducing funds by 
approving grant applications.


---------------------------

On 05/10/2021 10:00, Jonathan Fine wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Early this morning (2am) Jay Hammond moved a committee motion, that 
> "the last motion for the SGM be: UK TUG resolves to dissolve forthwith."
>
> I suggest we all hold back our comments on this until 2pm, to give Jay 
> ample time to tell us why he's moving his motion-on-a-motion.
>
> Jay's also invited and welcome to speak on this at the UK TeX Hour 
> tonight. (He's copied in on this message.)
>
> Here's the official text of Jay's motion this morning.
> https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-committee-motions/2021q4/000680.html 
> <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-committee-motions/2021q4/000680.html>
>
> with kind regards
>
> Jonathan

-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211005/db914e46/attachment.html>