[UK-TUG] Revealed --- the hidden sub-committee

[Jay Hammond]

Hi members,

This is for you, not Jonathan Fine. He's welcome to read it of course.  
I'm pretty sure he will ignore it, or not understand it (or both?), as 
he has in the past with similar analyses I have sent him privately.  I'm 
writing this like a newspaper article, not an academic paper, so I don't 
expect most readers to get past paragraph 3. If you are interested in 
what the committee work has been like recently, and why I have chosen to 
have informal discussions with some committee members before discussing 
on committee, read on.  I rather think some members would rather like to 
ignore the committee internals, and leave running UKTUG to  the 
committee.  That's their right. And I'd welcome them  to continue doing 
so.  But, the committee internals have surfaced because UKTUG cannot 
continue as it has been. Earlier committees have struggled to prevent 
the decline of UKTUG, and considered dissolution as a managed way to put 
a stop to the significant effort required to keep UKTUG going without a 
correspondingly valuable  benefit for members and the TeX community.  In 
2019 we discussed dissolution. In 2020 we passed motions about it. In 
2021 I've told you that UKTUG has failed. It's not bankrupt. But it has 
no plan for succession, no prospect of a future committee.  (Prove me 
wrong! Please ask to be co-opted onto the committee now; (you have not  
offered  in the past when I have made similar requests)). It is plain to 
me that a committee  with Jonathan Fine on it is even less effective 
than ones without him. Some members refuse to serve on a committee with 
Jonathan Fine on it, having experienced his behaviour.   I did not find  
the energy and time to change the committee rules so you (the members)  
could vote on who is allowed on the committee. At the moment committee  
accepts all volunteers. That may have been an error on my part.

Jonathan Fine interprets my behaviour as forming a sub-committee, and 
then criticises me for not conforming to the rules  that apply to 
sub-committees. I haven't formed a sub-committee, and thus it's not 
recorded in the minute book. He also says that he feels  he's being 
shunned for contradicting an orthodoxy; What orthodoxy?  I rather think 
it's his earlier explanation, that I limit interacting with him.  Well, 
that's politics, not disrespect. And  yes my respect goes to both 
Jonathan Fine, and UKTUG.  I believe that JF's mental model is that he 
believes he is doing the best for UKTUG and the TeX community by 
following his own particular  (self-aggrandizing) path, no matter what 
the cost to others.  In that sense his disruptive behaviour is honest. 
But I'm not prepared to bear the cost of JF's personal path and choices. 
There's no give-and-take with JF as I experience him.

There's usually  small 'p' politics in committees.  Most  of you will  
already understand that politics involves *goal setting, infighting,  
negotiation, co-operation*.  And that goal-setting takes place outside 
formal structures before it enters the formal ones.  Jonathan Fine 
either does not understand politics the way I do, or believes he can 
bully me (and the committee) into doing things his way.  This is a sorry 
state of affairs, and the underlying interactions have contributed to 
the poor outcomes from the committee in the last 9 or so months. I've 
been doing my best for you under what I feel are  trying circumstances.

I have learned, painfully, that the only aspect of politics Jonathan 
does with committee is the infighting bit*.   A political process such 
as  UKTUG committee needs all the aspects I describe.  Chairing UKTUG is 
a voluntary activity. I contribute what I can. Which is not as much as 
UKTUG needs. I regret that much of my time is taken up with unproductive 
infighting.

As chair I have no power. Zilch. I suggested  the committee adopt the 
charity commission's notion of etiquette. Or other rules of behaviour. 
My suggestion  found no favour.  How then,  to form a plan, and enact 
it?  Move the constructive parts of the process out of JF's reach so he 
can't disrupt e.g. the brainstorming,  the what if's, the scenario 
planning. And that's why the A_list discusses without JF. If he won't 
contribute, at least I have avoided  his entirely disrupting the 
constructive members of committee.

I have to be careful that the informal discussions do not directly  give 
rise to formal committee actions. The secretary acts for the committee 
on small matters. And negotiations from a committee member are quite 
acceptable as long as the binding agreement (if any) is made by the 
committee. We have had to have in-committee discussions of grants.

I make no apology for my approach to committee matters. Rather I seek 
your sympathy and praise -- well, actually  I don't need them, because 
I'm not standing as chair again, whether UKTUG continues or not.

Jay Hammond

* scrupulous honesty requires an 'almost' here. Just sometimes JF's 
questions about and interpretations of the constitution can be helpful. 
But his helpful interventions are such a small fraction of the overall 
output that they do not compensate for the disruption. Nowhere near.

jh








On 06/10/2021 16:03, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi
>
> Summary: Yesterday Jay (Chair of UK TUG) told us that the was a 
> previously hidden sub-committee. I explain this, and its consequences. 
> I express sadness and apologise for any contribution I may have made 
> to the present painful situation.
>
> I thank Jay for his post yesterday, which answers a question that I 
> didn't dare ask. For much of this year I've suspected that there was 
> an unofficial sub-committee, which I didn't know about, that discussed 
> and perhaps decided business before it went to the main committee.
>
> Yesterday Jay wrote: [M]ost of the current committee is saying little 
> in its actual meetings until its mind is made up. [THE] REAL 
> DISCUSSION IS TAKING PLACE ELSEWHERE. [Emphasis added.]
>
> Here's an example of how this works in practice.
>
> 1. Jay, presumably after a meeting of the sub-committee, tells you 
> that the majority opinion of the committee is that there be an SGM 
> "where we expect you to vote for dissolution".
>
> 2. I'm not aware of the sub-committee. I tell you, fairly and 
> accurately I hope: "Please regard Jay's statement as an expression of 
> his personal opinion. It does not, in my opinion, fairly and 
> accurately reflect committee discussion and votes."
>
> 3. Jay writes: "I wrote to you presenting the majority view of the 
> members of the UK-TUG committee with regard to dissolution. I regret 
> that Jonathan Fine is contradicting me."
>
> 4. I wonder by what mechanism Jay knows the majority view when I do 
> not.  I say nothing more on this matter, until today.
>
> The constitution allows the committee to delegate its powers or 
> functions to a subcommittee. It further states: "The terms of any such 
> delegation must be recorded in the minute book."
>
> The constitution also states: "All acts and proceedings of any 
> subcommittees must be fully and promptly reported to the Committee."
>
> Jay and the other committee members may regard their conduct as a 
> proper exclusion or avoidance of a disruptive, uncooperative and 
> awkward fellow committee members. I regard it as ostracism or 
> social-shunning, for contradicting an orthodoxy.
>
> This whole matter is painful and saddens me greatly. I believe UK TUG 
> in life and death deserves more dignity and respect that it presently 
> gets. I sincerely apologise to you all for any actions or words of 
> mine that have contributed to the present situation.
>
> 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/20211006/e7714ace/attachment.html>