[UK-TUG] Obtaining a clear outcome from the SGM

[Jay Hammond]

I've not read all of this thread. You seem to be discussing order of motions and are discovering that  ordered motions have disadvantages. Joseph and I thought that it might be possible to allow each motion to be discussed in its own separate thread, but in parallel. I assume each member still has one vote per motion. What does it mean if both "dissolve" and "continue" motions pass? I think the motion with most positive votes gets priority. 
Your comments

BTW, dissolve forthwith means effective now. Not at the end of the meeting. Hence constitution stipulation about timing of motions directing surplus funds. 
2019 motion on surplus funds had an if in it. The condition was not and cannot now be met. The motion passed but makes /made no direction to do anything. There is precedent for motions of the form 
If <condition> then <action>
Hth jay


⁣Get BlueMail for Android ​

On 15 Oct 2021, 16:54, at 16:54, Jonathan Fine <jfine2358 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi David
>
>I have wasted some time which I apologise, and even more of my own
>(which I
>deeply regret). Please ignore for now my previous message and respond
>only
>to this one.
>
>I feel most uncomfortable at the order paper being so arranged that the
>mover of a motion can be denied the opportunity to speak to the
>motion (except through an explicit procedural motion). UK TUG general
>meetings have operated on the principle that all motions are heard.
>
>In more detail, your proposal would allow the SGM to prevent the
>discussion
>of valid motions on the order paper, as a consequence of voting to
>dissolve
>UK-TUG before the motion comes up for debate. So far as I can recall,
>every
>general meeting of UK-TUG has discussed all motions on the order paper.
>
>Your proposal would reverse the custom and practice that every motion
>should have its time at the general meeting (unless prevented by an
>explicit procedural motion, such as that the motion not be put or that
>the
>meeting be closed).
>
>The SGM can if it wishes by procedural motions prevent the discussion
>of
>any motion on the order paper. To arrange the order paper so a
>substantial
>motion prevents the discussion of another motion is contrary to custom
>and
>practice. The reasons you give have logic behind them, but I find the
>conclusion unacceptable.
>
>with kind regards
>
>Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211015/8deaf4c8/attachment.html>