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

[Ewan Hawthorn]

Dear All,
I have, with sadness, dipped into the public exchanges about dissolution of UK-TUG over the past couple of years. I have been but a passive member wishing to maintain a connection with a straightforward markup language that promotes content over typography in the production of “printed” material because it focusses the mind of the author on content over appearance.

As I understand it, UK-TUG is an unincorporated association bound only by its own constitution and the common law rules of probity and fiduciary duty.

As a (former) programmer, that freedom seems self saving. If there are no agreed constitutional provisions for dissolution (or quora during a pandemic, etc.) then write the subroutines, have them approved in an objectively respectable manner then GOSUB.

What is done in good faith and is objectively reasonable is likely to pass objective scrutiny.

A constitution with lacunae is not a suicide pact, it is an opportunity to demonstrate goodwill and reasonable improvisation.

I confess that I have not read the UK-TUG constitution nor followed the minutiae of the discussions but I have suffered through enough can’t-see-the-wood-for-the-trees “constitutional” debates to run a mile from being drawn into one so I merely offer gratuitous observations.

I have no doubt that all those involved in the contentious discussions have the best of intentions but it seems (from my limited dipping-in) that strategic benefit has been the victim of tactical dispute. I hope that a deep breath and pause for reflection on the strategic objective might facilitate agreement (or, at least, concurrence on how to differ productively).

Regards,
Ewan.



Ewan Hawthorn
[Typed using the touchscreen of my iPhone - e&oe]

On 6 Oct 2021, at 23:09, Jay Hammond <jay at jjnr.uk> wrote:



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<mailto:jay at jjnr.uk>


This email has been sent by the Faculty of Advocates or its subsidiary Faculty Services Limited a company registered in Scotland (SC048261) and having its registered office at Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF. 
The email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager, sysadmin at advocates.org.uk This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Mimecast Ltd for the presence of computer viruses. Visit our website at www.advocates.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211006/e85fb3bf/attachment-0001.html>