[UK-TUG] Structure of the SGM

[Jay Hammond]

Hi members,


Structure of the SGM.


Thank you for considering dissolution here before the meeting. Thanks to 
those who submitted motions. I have not prepared a report for you, or 
planned the SGM.

So Joseph was not able to advise you what format and structure of 
motions would be acceptable to the SGM. That was an error on my part. I 
can offer reasons why this happened. But it’s not edifying. I do 
apologise to you. I’m not able to achieve all that I want for you. I 
have had no offers of additional help on the committee. Despite my 
requests for it. And that’s a part of the motivation for dissolution. 
Jonathan Fine is more stark on this topic. He’s right though. There 
won’t be an effective  UKTUG in 2022. UKTUG will be pretty much impotent 
or have dissolved in an orderly fashion. I prefer the latter option. You 
hardly have a choice. At least give UKTUG a decent burial. It’s not 
seemly to be precious about all the complex motions.

Back to the SGM Structure:

Because I have not yet put the SGM design in place, proposers have had 
to guess what structure will emerge for the SGM. And it’s not a surprise 
that the guesses differ. The SGM can’t have multiple conflicting 
structures at once. So I need to devise an SGM that suits the motions 
and I also need to ensure the motions fit the one SGM structure we 
arrive at. It seems to me inevitable that someone will have to make 
modifications to the motions. The question is when: Now, or during the 
meeting? The latter is impractical, as we are meeting in the e-SGM by 
email for only 7 days. and who?


I have been trying to devise a structure of SGM that would be simple and 
straightforward and allow the motions to be clearly voted on. 
Unfortunately, some of the motions are complex, time dependent and have 
other “difficult” features. Which would lead to a confusing complex SGM 
structure to support these features.


My preference would be to have one “UKTUG resolves to dissolve” motion 
and as many money motions as differ and are constitutionally acceptable, 
and stop there. But I’d prefer to have the agreement of the proposers.


Now I see the motions, there are 3 that propose dissolution, some with 
conditions some without. And some other motions urging action contrary 
to dissolution. Trying to allow you to vote clearly has given me some 
turbulent nights. I have to simplify the meeting.


No member can be expected to be alert and available to the meeting for 7 
days continuously. Nor is it a reasonable demand that members attend a 
particular time slot because they wish to be informed about, or vote on 
a particular motion. The member may have other commitments at that time. 
It is reasonable to expect members to find time to address the motions 
during the extent of the meeting.

That’s why I suggest that all the motions are up for discussion and 
voting for the duration of the meeting *. The motions will have no time 
dependent features. Or if they do, they are explicit in each clause of 
the motion. There will be no complex interactions between motions.

The money motions might need an if clause to restrict their application 
to the circumstances in which UKTUG resolves to dissolve in 2021. ( 2019 
had a similar structure of motion.)


* Like Knuth, I lied for simplicity of exposition. Voting ends before 
the end of the meeting, leaving the secretary time to tally the votes, 
and announce the results on the last morning of the meeting.


I’m not sure if we need Single transferable vote options for the money 
motions. Perhaps first past the post is enough.


Here’s a couple of suggestions about how to adjust the motions to suit 
this SGM design.


Plan A: all proposers agree to modify their their motions. Proposers and 
committee, or at least officers meet. Modifications to motions are agreed.


If plan A fails,


Plan B: As chair, I shall rule that some motions are inimical to the 
orderly running of the meeting. That it/they be not put to the meeting.


Plan B2 that I substitute a similar manageable motion for the inimical 
one(s). This might require the consent of the SGM, and that is a vote 
that has to take place in an early time slot. Which I have already said 
is not fair on members. Not an easy option. But not doing B2 would rule 
some motions out, with no possibility of discussion of their validly 
submitted intentions.


What can be done to make the motions manageable? Break them into their 
own meaningful elements, such as dissolve, allocate money, etc. Then 
sort and uniq. There will be a small number of action groups. E. g. Give 
surplus funds to: a successor organisation, to Dante and TUG, to...

Further simplification may be possible, necessary at this stage. Such as 
dissolve, with and without a "forthwith" being merged.

If these groups are full of mutually exclusive options, each member can 
have one (Yes) vote per group, and select their preferred option.

This solution requires major changes to some motions. But it allows you, 
the members, to clearly express your wishes, within the limits of the 
subject of the meeting, and the scope of the motions that were submitted.

Comments on the approach are welcome. Comments on the motions belong in 
a different thread. Please. If you think a motion will suffer unfairly 
under this approach, abstract away the content of the motion in your 
reply. Thanks


Jay











-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211018/5c6acf1a/attachment.html>