[UK-TUG] Personal statement on resignation from committee

[tonyharkeroxford at gmail.com]

Thank you, Malcolm, for a breath of fresh air. Once a group’s conversations come to be dominated by the sort of exchanges which we have seen recently I think most of us are just looking for a tidy end. 

 

  Tony

 

A.H. Harker
112 Cumnor Hill
Oxford
OX2 9HY
UK 



You can't fatten a hog by weighing it (American Proverb: but see Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., & Almond, R. G. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education 18(4) 2008.)

 

 

 

From: uktug-announce <uktug-announce-bounces+tonyharkeroxford=gmail.com at tug.org> On Behalf Of Malcolm Clark
Sent: 20 October 2021 18:42
To: uktug-announce at tug.org
Subject: Re: [UK-TUG] Personal statement on resignation from committee

 

while scrupulously washing our linen in public is, in a sense, ensuring transparency and openness, it's also unedifying.

can we get on with the business in hand, the dissolution of a beloved group, and stop airing our egos in public?

sadly

Malcolm Clark, ukTUG founding Chairman

On 20/10/2021 18:30, Jay Hammond wrote:

I do differ markedly from Jonathan Fine. I have accepted his resignation.  

I am quoted out of context, as usual. My remark was not the start of our disagreements, nor will it be the end.

It was part of a list of increasingly unpleasant alternatives I was faced with. I suggested to Jonathan that he select the least unpleasant one.  JF's choices make a great deal of difference to the outcomes he gets.

jay

 

 

I do not believe that it was the real motivation for Jonathan's resignation, which he still has to give us in my opinion.

On 20/10/2021 15:18, Jonathan Fine wrote:

Dear UK-TUG Members 

 

Differences with leading members of the committee is the principal reason why I resigned. The Chair has said that he might "impose an SGM plan of my [Jay's] own choosing and (see Procrustes bed) reject or modify motions so that all motions put to the members are chairable".

 

I hope this doesn't happen. I don't see why rejection of motions would be necessary. According to wikipedia, "Procrustean" is used to describe situations where an arbitrary standard is used to measure success, while completely disregarding obvious harm that results from the effort.

 

I'm pleased that TUG has accepted my donation with the "supporting TeX in the UK" restriction. If the same can be arranged for a donation arising from dissolution I'd be a lot happier, particularly if it happens before the SGM.

 

with kind regards

 

Jonathan

-- 
Email use jay at jjnr.uk <mailto:jay at jjnr.uk> 

-- 
malcolm clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211020/5f97e630/attachment-0001.html>